BX (616 

.B55 



»e Bible Way 



J. F. BLACK 




Class 3__ 

Book r , 5*5" 

Gopight N° 



< oeyrigmt deposit. 



The Bible Way 

AN ANTIDOTE TO CAMPBELLISM 



By 
REV. J. F. BLACK, A. M., 

Upper Iowa Conference, Methodist Epis- 
copal Church 



" Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it.' 
— John xi, 5. 




CINCINNATI: JENNINGS AND GRAHAM 
NEW YORK: EATON AND MAINS 



yp 



P>$ € 



OCT 4 1306 
p OflpyifiMMnp 
©L/W3 A. XXfc M* 



Copyright, 1906, by 
Jennings and Graham 



*- 



THE BIBLE WAY 



THE BIBLE WAY. 

Charley Wideawake. — Good morning, Dr. 
Fairplay ! I have called to have a little talk with 
you on religious matters, if you are not too busy. 

Dr. Fairplay. — Certainly, Charley: I shall 
be most happy to talk with you. I understand 
you have become a Christian and are thinking of 
uniting with the Church. 

C. — Yes, sir; I have. But I am a little unde- 
cided which Church to join, and that is what I 
came to see you about. 

Dr. — Well, Charley, if you are unsettled on 
doctrinal matters, the best advice I can give you 
is to take the Bible as your guide; study care- 
full) what it says, and then follow its teachings. 

C. — That is exactly my idea. A minister who 
v<aid his name was Narroway, and that he was 
pastor of the First Christian Church, called at 
our house yesterday and said that some of his 
people had informed him that I was thinking of 
uniting with the Methodists ; but that he had 
come to show me how much better it would be to 
unite with the Christian Church, if I believed 

5 



6 The Bibi,3 Way. 

in and desired to practice primitive Christianity, 
as it was that for which their Church particu- 
larly stood. 

Dr. — I believe there are several denomina- 
tions claiming a monopoly of the name Christian 
Church; each, no doubt, refuses the title to the 
other. Other denominations — like the Meth- 
odists, Congregationalists, Baptists, and Presby- 
terians — while claiming to be Christian Churches, 
have sufficient regard and courtesy for the rights 
of others not to arrogate to themselves, as their 
distinctive denominational name, the general 
name which belongs to all Churches in common. 
No single denomination of Christians can pos- 
sibly constitute The; Christian Church any 
more than the part of a thing can be the whole 
of it. For other Christian Churches to concede to 
any single denomination the title "The; Chris- 
tian Church" is equivalent to acknowledging 
that they themselves are no part of the Christian 
Church. It is bad enough for any Church to 
claim this distinction, it is still worse for other 
Christians to concede it. Did he tell you which 
one of the denominations claiming to be the 
Christian Church he desired you to join? 

C. — He said the Methodists, Presbyterians, 
and others were all simply Sects, but that he was 
pastor of the Christian Church, and that they 



The Bibls Way. 7 

were sometimes known as the Disciples of 
Christ.* 

Dr. — Did you inquire whether the Disciple 
body constituted all of the Christian Church? 

C. — I did, and he at first seemed disinclined 
to give me a direct answer. He evidently pre- 



* Note — In employing the word Campbei<i,ism in 
the title of this book the author disclaims all purpose of 
using it in any disparaging or offensive sense. There is 
a well-defined system of religious doctrine which, accord- 
ing to all the cyclopedias and authentic histories, is as 
traceable to Alexander Campbell as the system of Calvin- 
ism is traceable to John Calvin. Alexander Campbell 
was the leading spirit in the formation of " The Christian 
Association of Brush Run," organized in May, 1811. 
This was neither more nor less than a distinct denom- 
ination ; and by it Mr. Campbell was, at its first session, 
licensed to preach. 

The system of doctrine formulated and taught by 
Mr. Campbell is as legitimately and appropriately termed 
Campbellism as the doctrinal system promulgated by 
Mr. Wesley is designated Wesleyanism, or the system 
taught by Mr. Calvin bears his name ; and this entirely 
irrespective of the question whether the system under 
consideration is or is not Scriptural. We therefore refuse 
to regard the use of either term as in any sense dis- 
courteous ; while we would consider it quite discourteous 
to other denominations to distinguish one of the Chris- 
tian denominations from all others by giving it the name 
which is held in common by all Christian Churches, and 
denominating it as the Christian Church. 

Disciple people, of course, insist that not Campbell, 
but Christ, was the founder of their denomination ; this, 
however, is a mere begging of the question, which can 
be no more consistently allowed by people of other de- 
nominations than a similar claim for their respective 
churches can be accepted by the followers of Mr. Camp- 
bell. 



8 Ths Bim,b Way. 

ferred not to answer the question in that form. 
He said, "We desire to be known simply as 
Christians ; we do not claim that we are the only 
Christians, but, discarding every addition to the 
Word of God, we are rebuilding in name, in doc- 
trine, and in polity, the New Testament Church." 
I said, "My question was not whether you 
were the only Christians, but whether the Dis- 
ciple denomination constitutes all of the Chris- 
tian Church." "Well," he replied, "we do not 
like to press the claim that we constitute all of 
the Christian Church or Church of Christ, for it 
is evident that there are a large number of pure, 
consecrated souls even in sectarianism." I said, 
"My question was not concerning the purity or 
consecration of individual souls, but as to what 
constitutes the Christian Church. Am I to un- 
derstand you that some of those in 'sectarianism' 
— who are not members of the Disciple denom- 
ination — in any sense constitute part of the 
Christian Church?" He answered, "Yes." 
"Then," said I, "according to your own admis- 
sion, the Disciple denomination does not consti- 
tute the whole of the Christian Church ; yet you 
assume that it does by appropriating to your- 
selves, as your distinguishing name, the name 
that you confess embraces more than yourselves. 
What consistency can you show in this?" 



The Bible Way. 9 

"I see," said he, "that I went a little too far 
in admitting that any one outside of the Disciple 
Church could be, in any sense, a member of the 
Christian Church. We have always maintained 
that the Christian Church, or Church of Christ, 
is not divided into parts, and that the Methodists, 
Baptists, Presbyterians, and others, are only 
sects, and therefore neither of these denomina- 
tions, nor any of the members of them, can be 
regarded as parts of the Christian Church. So, 
though we prefer not to put it that way unless 
compelled (as we find it hurts us), yet, if I must 
be frank with you, that is exactly what we claim. 
Our position is that, as organizations, no one of 
the sects, nor all combined, nor any of their mem- 
bers, constitute the Church of Christ or any part 
of it. The Disciple body is the one, only organ- 
ization on earth entitled to be known as the 
Church — or a Church — of Christ; we designate 
all others as 'sects/ and brand them as 'ists, 
erians/ etc. We only are The Christian 
Church." 

Dr. — Precisely ! And did you suggest to him 
that in such arrogance they correspond exactly 
w T ith the Church of Rome? 

C. — No, sir. But nobody can deny that what 
you say is true. I simply replied: "You must 
have reasons which to yourselves are most con- 



io Th£ Bibi,3 Way. 

vincing, to take a position which unchurches 
every other denomination in Christendom. Might 
I inquire what your reasons are?" 

He replied : "Well, in the first place, we dis- 
card all human names. We believe that to take 
any other name than that of the first, or New 
Testament Church — the Church set up by Jesus 
— is to violate Divine injunction, and create 
schism in the body of Christ/' 

"And," said I, "the Methodists believe that 
this prescription, instead of being a 'divine in- 
junction/ is a human imposition, foisted on the 
Church by the adherents of that system, the chief 
development and advocacy of which is attributed 
to Alexander Campbell. If, however, God has 
given us such an injunction I must know it, 
since my motto is 'whatsoever He saith unto you, 
do it/ and I am determined to go the Bible way. 
If I mistake not, the Methodists teach that 'what- 
soever is not read in the Scriptures, nor may be 
proved thereby, is not to be required of any that 
it should be believed as an article of faith/ so 
now, as you both profess to go by the Book, and 
you claim the Bible prohibits the taking of any 
other name than that of what you call the first, 
or New Testament Church — the Church set up 
by Jesus — while they emphatically deny this, I 
am anxious to know which is right. Will you 



Ths Bibi,£ Way. ii 

kindly tell me, first, what was the name by which 
the Church was designated in the New Testa- 
ment times, and then will you cite me to the 
Scripture which forbids the taking of any other 
name ?" 

"The Church," said he, "was called in the 
New Testament, The Church of Christ (Rom. 
xvi, 16), The Church of God (i Cor. i, 2), The 
Way (Acts ii, 9), The Church of the First-born 
(Heb. xii, 23), and simply The Church (Acts ii, 
47, and many other places). 

"And I believe," said I, "that the individual 
followers of Jesus were called Nazarenes, breth- 
ren, the faithful, elect, saints, believers, disciples, 
and by many other names ; there seems, then, to 
have been considerable latitude in the name even 
in those times. Suppose, now, some one should 
speak to you of the Disciple body and refer to 
it as 'The Way,' 'The Church/ The Church of 
the First Born/ or 'The Church of God/ would 
you understand him as referring to the particu- 
lar body in which you say you are a minister ?" 

He replied, "We answer to any Bible name." 

Said I, "You prefer not to answer my ques- 
tion ; then let me ask you another : Do you deed 
your Church property to 'The Way/ or 'The 
Church/ or 'The Church of the First-born,* or 
'The Church of God?' or would you be afraid 



12 Thd Bibu; Way. 

the Winebrennerians (who call themselves The 
Church of God), or some other denomination, 
would claim your property? What is the legal 
name by which your people hold their property ?" 

"Usually, I think, it is either the Christian 
Church, or the Church of Christ," he answered. 

"Well, now," said I, "I was looking up this 
matter the other day, and I found that neither 
expression 'Christian Church* nor 'Church ot 
Christ' is found anywhere in the Bible, though 
the expression 'Churches of Christ' is found just 
once (Rom. xvi, 16). "The Churches of Christ 
salute you/ just as any one would speak of the 
Churches of Christ now, without reference to 
any particular denomination. Consequently the 
name 'Church of Christ' was never used in the 
Bible in a denominational sense, as the Disciple 
people use it now — to distinguish one body of 
Christians from another body of Christians; 
hence, 'when used denominationally, it is as much 
a human name as Methodist.'" (See Christian 
Unity, by A. S. Black, page 23. — Author.) 

He replied, "That would be true if we were 
a denomination, but we claim that we are not a 
denomination, but simply the Christian Church." 

I inquired, "How do the dictionaries define 
the word denomination?' Do they not say that, 
in an ecclesiastical sense, the word denomination 
means 'a religious communion; a body of pro- 



Th£ Bibu; Way. 13 

fessing Christians holding essentially the same 
tenets?'" 

He replied, "Yes, sir." 

"Then/' said I, "are not the Disciple people 
such a body?" He was compelled to assent. 
"Then," said I, "according to the dictionaries 
and your own admissions, you are nothing more 
nor less than a denomination, and the name you 
give yourselves, 'Church of Christ/ when used 
denominationally, to distinguish one body of 
Christians from another, is without Divine au- 
thority, and as much a human name as any. To 
settle the question at issue, I want you to cite 
the passage which prescribes that the Church 
should be forever known by any one or all of 
the names by which it was called in the New 
Testament times, or which in any way proves 
that for any part of the Church to take any other 
name violates Divine injunction, as you affirmed. 
If you can produce such a passage it will settle 
the matter at once ; if you can not, you have no 
right to make such an assertion, and no eccle- 
siastical organization has any right or authority 
to bind upon the Church such prescription; for 
Paul says, 'Where no law is, there is no trans- 
gression.' Produce the passage, and it will set- 
tle whether you or the Methodists are right on 
the first point." 



14 The: Bible: Way. 

"Well," said he, "I am not sure that I can 
point you to any passage which, in so many 
words, prescribes the taking of any of the names 
found in the Bible, or positively prohibits the 
taking of any other name, but it is evident that 
other than Bible names must cause divisions." 

"I fail to see it," I replied; "but of course 
that is a mere matter of opinion, and as we were 
not discussing human opinion, but seeking to 
ascertain what God has said, and has not said, 
in the matter, it will scarcely be in order to en- 
tertain anything else at present." 

"Well," said he, "it is an indisputable fact 
that Christ once called the Church 'My Church' 
(Matt, xvi, 18). Not the Methodist, or Presby- 
terian, or Baptist Church; not your Church, or 
somebody else's, but the Church of Christ Do 
you see it ? What right have men to fasten upon 
it any human name?" 

"I do not deny," I replied, "that Christ spoke 
of the Church as 'My Church,' nor do I affirm 
that the Church, either then or since, has be- 
longed to any other. But the point is, did Christ, 
in the passage quoted, say that the name of the 
Church was Church of Christ, and that it should 
forever be so called, or did you put these words 
into the Master's lips? Would the Savior's ref- 
erence to the Church as His, without even a 



Ths Bibi,3 Way. 15 

mention of the name by which you say it was 
to be designated, be a positive command to us 
to call the Church 'The Church of Christ ?' Or 
are you substituting your words for the Master's, 
and then making your construction equivalent to 
Divine injunction? Let us look at another pas- 
sage: Jesus called the place of worship 'My 
House 9 (Matt, xxi, 13), never, I believe, did He 
call it a church, yet you call your house of wor- 
ship a church. Why, on your principle, do you 
not invariably call your house of worship The 
House of Christ? Why do you put upon it a 
human name ? Why is there not the same Divine 
injunction here as in the other case?" 

"Well," he said, "Acts xi, 26, declares that 
the disciples were called Christians first at An- 
tioch." 

"Yes," I replied, "but the passage does not 
say by whom they were so called; probably it 
was by their enemies. Certainly the passage 
does not say ; but the question is not, What was 
the Church first called? much less, What were 
the individual followers of Christ originally 
called? — all admit that they were frequently, if 
not commonly, called Christians, and the indi- 
vidual members of all religious bodies among us 
call themselves Christians — but the point we were 
discussing was as to the particular name by 



16 The; Bibus Way. 

which the Church must be called by Divine 
command. 

"The great Dr. Adam Clarke, himself a 
Methodist, expresses the opinion," said he, "that 
this name was given by Divine appointment/' 

I answered : "Yes, but I do not rest my faith 
on human opinions. If I did, I could easily quote 
scores of human authorities, or opinions, in op- 
position to Dr. Clarke's. For example, Dr. 
Whedon, the great commentator, says, 'For this 
Greek appellation we must doubtless thank the 
genius of the lively Greek Pagans of Antioch/ 
He also calls attention to the fact that Luke, who 
wrote the Acts, never used the epithet himself 
(a thing unaccountable if it was of Divine ap- 
pointment), though he recognized it as having 
originated in Antioch. But what settles the mat- 
ter as far, probably, as any human authority can 
settle it, is the fact that Chrysostom, one of the 
early Greek fathers, when himself preacher at 
Antioch, told the Antiochians that 'though they 
had invented the Christian name, they left to 
others the practice of the Christian virtues.' But 
it matters not to me what the world says, I am 
determined to go the Bible way. Does the Bible 
say that God appointed them that name ?" 

He replied, "I confess that here, I have been 
resting on human opinions" 



The; Bibi,3 Way. 17 

"Yes/' said I, "and even if those opinions 
were correct, it would not have settled the point 
at issue; for, as I said, the question is not, what 
were the individual followers of Christ called, 
but did Christ command that His Church should 
take the name 'Christian Church?' This is what 
you affirmed ; now show me the passage/' 

"Well," said he, "Eph. iii, 14, says, 'Of whom 
the whole family in heaven and earth is named.' 
Now, if they are named for Christ, what else can 
the name be but Christian Church?" 

"But," I replied, "the passage does not say 
that this family is named for Christ. It says, 
'for this cause I bow my knees [not unto Christ, 
but] unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is 
named.' You see, it is God the Father from 
whom the whole family takes its name, and the 
name referred to is evidently not Christian 
Church, but Sons of God (See 1 John iii, 1). 
Now, show me one passage where God com- 
mands us to take the name Christian Church. 
Can you do it ?" 

He hesitated a moment, and then replied, "I 
am afraid not." 

"Then," said I, "the facts are these: You 
have originated a denomination for the avowed 
purpose of protesting against the Church at large 



18 The Bibi,s Way. 

for taking upon it human names; you declare 
to the world that you are rebuilding in name the 
New Testament Church ; in order thus to rebuild 
its name, you take upon yourselves a name (The 
Christian Church), which, according to your own 
concession, is not only not commanded in the 
New Testament, but is not even mentioned any- 
where in the Scriptures. On this amazing plat- 
form you propose to unchurch every other de- 
nomination in Christendom, heal all schisms, and 
break down all divisions in the Body of Christ. 
In the name of sober reason, Mr. Narroway, 
what must the world think of such a proceeding? 
Is it not time that your denomination should 
either cease to call itself the Christian Church or 
give up its pretensions of rebuilding in name the 
New Testament Church? Instead of 'discard- 
ing every addition to the Word of God,' you have 
been making some material additions, have you 
not?" 

Dr. — You might have added that while the 
Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, and 
others, have the Christian courtesy to take dis- 
tinguishing names, they neither thereby violate 
any Divine command, nor yield up their right to 
be called Christian Churches; while those who 
take to themselves the name Christian as their 
peculiar denominational title, and object to being 
designated by any name which would distinguish 



Ths Bibls Way. rg 

them from other Christian bodies, display an ar- 
rogance toward their fellow-Christians which a 
proper self-respect will not permit others to sanc- 
tion for an instant. And instead of such ar- 
rogance being calculated to heal schisms, it is, 
of all things, the one most calculated to create 
schisms in the Body or Church of Christ. 

There are now at least two distinct denomin- 
ations, holding entirely different tenets, each call- 
ing itself "The Christian Church," a name which, 
as you have shown, is nowhere found in the 
Bible. What is the result? Is it union, and an 
obliteration of all division between the two 
bodies? Certainly not. The simple result is 
confusion, and others are compelled, in their 
efforts to be courteous, to refer to one as the 
Christian Connection; and the other as the Dis- 
ciple denomination. 

The Disciples claim, also, that they are the 
Church of God; there is another distinct but 
small denomination which does the same. What 
is the result? Closer union between them than 
exists between other religious bodies? Certainly 
not. But others are compelled to call one the 
Winebrennerians, and the other Disciples, or 
Campbellites, not by way of nickname, as these 
people sometimes affect to believe, but because 
of the necessity of the case. 



20 The: Bibu; Way. 

When asked if theirs is the only Christian 
Church, they invariably try to evade the ques- 
tion, and say, "We claim that we are Christians 
only, but not the only Christians." This, of 
course, does not answer the question. Hold 
them strictly to the question, not what they pro- 
fess to be as individuals, but whether or not 
their Church constitutes all of the Christian 
Church, and they are compelled to admit that 
such is their contention; if not, then they are 
not the Christian Church, but, like all the rest, 
only a part of it. Nor is it true that they are 
Christians only in any different sense from that 
in which Methodists or Presbyterians are Chris- 
tians only. They themselves admit that there 
are many persons who are members of the par- 
ticular denomination which they call the Chris- 
tian Church, who are not Christians at all in the 
sense in which that word is generally used, of 
being saved and converted men. These may be 
Christians only, in the denominational sense, or 
Christians (in the denominational sense only), 
but they are no more Christians only, in the sense 
of being undenominationally Christians, than are 
the Christians in any other Church. 

If a Christian in one of the other Churches 
withdraws, and for the time being joins no other 
Church, he is a Christian only, but he is not a 
Christian only in the sense in which these people 



Ths Bibi^ Way. 21 

use that term, which plainly shows that they are 
playing upon that expression — "Christian only" 
— and, by using it in a double sense, are prac- 
ticing a piece of religious jugglery, which ought 
to bring the blush of shame to the cheek of any 
man that attempts to use it. What else was said ? 

C. — I continued : "Since, then, the name 
Christian Church is quite as subject to recogni- 
tion as a party name as any other, and you have 
failed to produce the Scripture which commands 
or enjoins upon the Church the adoption of this, 
or any other particular name, and we have seen 
that, when used denominationally as you people 
use it, the name Christian Church is as much a 
human name as any, will you now give me one 
real, genuine reason for seeking to unchurch all 
other religious denominations, since they all claim 
to be Christian Churches ?" 

"Well," said he, "the Methodists, Baptists, 
Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and others, are 
all fettered down with human creeds, confessions, 
articles of faith, etc., while we have nothing of 
the kind ; with us the Word of God is 'all-suffi- 
cient/ and is our 'only creed.' " 

At this juncture Rev. Narroway was himself 
announced and Dr. Fairplay directed that he be 
ushered to the study, requesting Charley to re- 
main. 



22 The Bible Way. 

Rev. Narroway. — Good morning Brother 
Fairplay! I suppose you have seen we are to 
begin union meetings at the Christian Church 
Monday evening? Now, as your church is con- 
siderably larger than ours, and the evangelists 
will doubtless draw big crowds, being wholly un- 
sectarian, and having union as one of their chief 
aims, and as the interest is already up at your 
Church, you having just closed your great revival 
(I believe it is admitted to be one of the most 
successful revivals which has ever visited our 
city), they requested that, if possible, we get 
your consent and just continue the meeting at 
your church. What do you say? (Then turning 
slightly and seeing Charley) Why, Mr. Wide- 
awake, are you here? 

C. (rising) — Good morning, Mr. Narroway! 
You may address me as Charley, if you please. 
Having had the conversation with you yesterday, 
I thought I would just drop in and see the Doc- 
tor a little while this morning. 

Rev. N. — And I suppose he has been doing 
his best to persuade you to join the Methodists? 

C. — No, sir. He has so far simply advised 
me to take the Bible as my guide. I was about 
to tell him what you said concerning creeds. 

Rev. N. (turning to the Doctor) — Well, sir, I 
told this young man that the Christian Church 



The; Bibi^ Way. 23 

has no creed except the Bible, and that we believe 
that to be all sufficient. 

Dr. — I am sorry to differ with you, but the 
Methodist Church claims to be a Christian 
Church, and we have a creed. 

N. — I mean the Disciple Church has no creed. 

Dr. — I am sorry to disagree with you again, 
but I am satisfied that the Disciple denomination, 
like every other, has a creed, which, though not 
perhaps written out under that title, and desig- 
nated a creed, is, nevertheless, a creed, just as 
human, clearly defined, to all intents and pur- 
poses practically as much sanctioned by eccle- 
siastical authority, and as dogmatically binding 
upon all who seek her communion, as any creed 
which ever honestly bore its proper name. This 
creed may be learned from the writings and ser- 
mons of Alexander Campbell, and all the lesser 
lights who have followed him as preachers in 
the Disciple denomination. 

N. — You astonish me by asserting that we 
have a human creed. We stoutly maintain, sir, 
that the Bible is our only creed. Our motto is, 
"Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and 
where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent." 

Dr. — I know that you so claim, but I should 
think the difficulties you encountered yesterday 
in conversation with this young man would 



24 Th£ Bibi,e Way. 

make you a little cautious about repeating the 
claim. We can not judge, in these days, how 
closely people follow the teachings of Scripture 
by the vehemence of their professions. You will 
yourself scarcely deny, for it is a notorious fact, 
that nearly all modern innovators profess ex- 
ceedingly unusual attachment to the Word of 
God; note the Seventh Day Adventists, for ex- 
ample. Their teachings are well-nigh as anti- 
Scriptural as it is possible to be, and yet none 
boast more loudly of their absolute adherence 
to the Word of God than they. You say you 
have no creed but the Bible, but your practice 
contradicts your profession. 

N. — What do you mean by such a statement 
as that? 

Dr. — I mean, sir, that as a Church, you will 
refuse admission to some and exclude from mem- 
bership others who exactly correspond with you 
in their disavowal of creeds, unless they will 
agree to your peculiar interpretation of the Bible, 
on some points at least, and those points, too, 
upon which there is by no means perfect agree- 
ment. 

N. — Why, sir, our Church admitted Barton 
W. Stone, who, in the early part of this century, 
originated a sect known as "New Lights," which 
denied the Deity of Christ, and rejected the doc- 



The; Bibi,3 Way. 25 

trine of the atonement. He admitted the words 
of the Bible, and it was none of our business 
what meanings he attached to them. We have 
no creed, and we did not ask him what he be- 
lieved the Bible taught concerning Christ. It is 
enough for us that one professes to believe the 
Bible, and either has been or will be immersed 
for the remission of sins. We could not con- 
sistently do otherwise than receive him. Does 
not this prove that we are consistent with our 
profession ? 

Dr. — With the exception of the requirement 
concerning immersion, Mr. Campbell and his 
Church were perfectly consistent. As to what 
one's belief and practice is concerning what con- 
stitutes Christian baptism, to be consistent with 
your principles, it is no more your business than 
to inquire what his belief is on any other doc- 
trine: in doing so you announce as loudly as 
words can speak it, that you have a creed, 
whether written or unwritten, as distinctly 
human as any creed in any Church on earth, and 
the only marvel is that your people can so deceive 
themselves as to imagine that their creed is not 
just as human as any. But, as you say, Mr. 
Campbell could not consistently do otherwise 
than receive Mr. Stone. The principles of his 
Church consistently carried out afford no pro- 



26 The; Bibus Way. 

tection from the admission of those who hold and 
teach any doctrine, no matter how harmful, if 
only they will assent to the words of the Bible 
and be immersed. A. Raines, a Universalist 
preacher, was also admitted in the same way. 

These men who robbed Christ of His glory, 
and the cross of its power to save, were welcomed 
into the Disciple Church as ministers because that 
Church could not consistently do otherwise than 
receive them. They assented to the words of 
the Bible while holding doctrines diametrically 
opposed to the teachings of the Bible as held by 
Mr. Campbell. Mr. Campbell said, "If only 
their words are Bible words, we can not object to 
them." Also Dr. Thomas, who rejected the doc- 
trine of immortality, and held that pagans, 
idiots, and infants are all annihilated, could not 
be excluded without a palpable violation of the 
principles of Discipleism, and so he was per- 
mitted to remain, on condition that he "discon- 
tinue the discussion of the subject, unless in self- 
defense when misrepresented," which require- 
ment was itself a most glaring inconsistency. So 
we see that so long as Unitarians do not object 
to using the language of the Bible in reference 
to Christ — a thing to which they are not at all 
likely to object — this so-called Christian (Disci- 
ple) Church will make no difficulty about the 



Ths Bibls Way. 27 

interpretation they put upon that language. For 
the above facts we are indebted to Professor 
Rice, who asks : "Is not language the vehicle of 
ideas? and is even the language of the Bible of 
any worth, except as it conveys to the mind the 
truths the Holy Spirit designs to teach? Men 
are sanctified through 'The Truth/ not by words 
misunderstood. It is the truth that 'makes men 
free/ and not words so interpreted as to teach 
error. True piety is obedience to the truth, not 
to words misinterpreted. How absurd, then, to 
insist that men shall use the words of the Bible, 
and yet allow them, as matters of opinion at 
least, to assign to them a false meaning. This 
new reformation has a very broad mantle of 
charity for all errorists." 

But now look at your inconsistency : Suppose 
this young man should present himself as a can- 
didate for membership in your Church next Sab- 
bath morning, and maintain, just as you require, 
that the Bible is his only creed, and that he is 
determined to obey God in all things. He might 
agree to every word in the Bible, but unless you 
could, in addition to all that, persuade him to 
adopt your interpretation of the word "baptize," 
and agree to act on that interpretation — viz., that 
the word baptize prescribes dipping, that the 
word definitely specifies the manner in which 



28 The; Bibu; Way. 

the subject and the baptizing element are to 
come into contact with each other — no power on 
earth could induce you to accept him, even 
though you knew there was nothing against his 
life, that he insisted upon the Bible as his only 
creed, and agreed to assent to every word of it 
as he understood it, and you knew he was as 
sincere as an angel in heaven, you would re- 
ject him. You will admit the Unitarian upon 
profession of repentance, even while robbing 
Christ of His Deity, if only he will assent to the 
words of the Bible and be immersed. You will 
admit the Universalist, who believes that all will 
be saved at last, whatever his character here, if 
only, professing to repent, he will assent to the 
words of the Bible, and be immersed. You will 
admit the man who believes in the annihilation 
of pagans, infants, and idiots hereafter, if only, 
professing repentance, he assents to the words of 
the Bible, and is immersed. But you will reject 
every man, even though his life be pure and 
spotless, even though he professes repentance 
toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, 
and even though he agree to assent to every word 
of the Bible, unless he will also assent to put upon 
one word the same interpretation you put upon 
it, or do what you interpret that word to mean. 
And yet you say that you have no creed but the 



The; Bibu£ Way. 29 

Bible, thus making your interpretation of the 
Bible equal with the Bible itself. I say, there- 
fore, that you deny in practice what you so 
loudly affirm in word; viz., that you have no 
creed but the Bible. 

On what principle will you reject this man? 
Is it on the principle that he refuses to obey God ? 
No, sir ; but simply that he refuses to accept your 
interpretation of what constitutes obedience to 
God. In other words, you thereby announce to 
him that you have a creed. And even though 
yours and his are both framed in Bible words, 
you believe his creed is both human and false, and 
he believes the same of yours. Here is proof 
positive that you recognize a man's creed to be 
something different from the words in which he 
clothes it. To say, therefore, that your creed 
is anything more than human because expressed 
in Bible language is to assume the prerogatives 
of Deity, and claim for your interpretation Divine 
infallibility. 

N. (consulting his watch) — I think it is about 
time for me to be going. 

Dr. — Have you anything more to say about 
creeds ? 

N. — Well, sir, I see you are wedded to your 
system of creedology, and love it as Saul loved 
Judaism. I suppose the first thing we know you 



30 The; Bible: Way. 

will have this young man sprinkled, and on the 
way to "Babylon." I do abominate human 
creeds, and still contend that the Bible is all- 
sufficient. 

Dr. — Try and control yourself, Mr. Narro- 
way! I certainly have no disposition to deny 
the Bible's sufficiency for its God-intended pur- 
poses. But what do you contend the Bible is all- 
sufficient for? 

N. — To render not only unnecessary and use- 
less, but heretical and wicked, every other sum- 
mary or statement of religious beliefs called 
creeds. 

Dr. — I see no difference whether such a sum- 
mary or statement is called a creed or a sermon. 
But if every other statement of religious beliefs 
is useless and wicked, is it not about time your 
ministers and people ceased preaching sermons 
and writing books to explain the Word of God? 

N. — O, we do not question the privilege of 
making statements setting forth doctrinal posi- 
tions. 

Dr. — I thought you said the Word of God 
was all-sufficient to render not only useless and 
unnecessary, but heretical and wicked, every 
other statement of religious truth. 

N. — Well, but a mere statement of one's doc- 
trinal position is easily distinguishable from a 



Ths Bibus Way. 31 

creed sanctioned by ecclesiastical authority and 
made a bond of union and communion. There 
is a great difference between the two. 

Dr. — Why so? A creed is simply a state- 
ment of belief. One is under the authority and 
sanction of at least one, the other of more than 
one. I am getting interested to have you explain 
the principle of ethics which condemns one and 
allows the other. 

N. — Really I did not expect to get into such 
a mess as this. 

Dr. (smiling) — You begin to feel the force 
of the Scripture which says : "Happy is the man 
that condemneth not himself in the thing which 
he alloweth." Is not that about your state of 
mind? 

N. — I contend that it is absurd to suppose 
that fallible man can improve on the "form of 
sound words." 

Dr. — Then why do you preach sermons and 
write books to explain those words, or to show 
how you understand them? 

N. — The object of such sermons is not to im- 
prove on the "form of sound words." 

Dr. — You may say the same of written 
creeds. Any explanation which will relieve you 
will also help to clear up your mind on the creed 
question. I recommend that you give that sub- 



32 The: Bibu; Way. 

ject a little thoughtful consideration. The 
exercise will be profitable to you. 

N. — Can you deny that creeds are an occa- 
sion of controversy ? 

Dr. — I will answer by asking you another: 
Can you deny that the same is true of sermons 
and all statements of doctrinal positions? Why 
do you not therefore condemn them as useless 
and wicked? 

N. — We contend that that only is undebatable 
which is Divine. 

Dr. — Very true. Now, since your creed is 
not only debatable, but rejected by the great 
mass of Christians as absolutely unscriptural, it 
is certain, yourself being judge, that it can not 
be Divine. In accusing those who reject your 
interpretation of God's words, of rejecting God, 
you are simply making yourselves equal zvith 
God. Mr. Narroway, I want an answer to this 
question: May heresy be taught in Bible lan- 
guage? 

N. — If it may, may it not also be taught in 
the language of human creeds? 

Dr. — Certainly, but your question is only 
an evasion. Answer my question: May heresy 
be taught in Bible language ? 

N. — I suppose it may, since Unitarians admit 
that Jesus was the "Son of God," while they 



Th£ Bibi^ Way. 33 

attach to those words a meaning by which they 
deny his proper Deity. 

Dr. — Well, now, since the words of God have 
been purposely distorted as the words of no 
other ever have, and different parties put differ- 
ent constructions upon them, how may I know 
what any man's belief is, if he simply tells me 
he believes the Bible? All of the professed fol- 
lowers of the Bible, no matter what their belief, 
will say that. How, then, will such a profession 
indicate what you believe the Bible really 
teaches ? 

N. — I suppose the only way to ascertain how 
we understand the Bible, is by our writings and 
sermons. 

Dr. — Then here, sir, we are to find your 
creed. 

N. — I think, Mr. Fairplay, we may as well 
settle the matter about which I came to see you, 
as no good will probably come from a further 
discussion. How about getting your Church? 

Dr. — You said you were going to begin union 
meetings ? 

N. — Yes, sir. We have engaged two evan- 
gelists who have been meeting with great success 
in restoring primitive Christianity. 

Dr. — What Churches have united in this 
movement ? 



34 The: Bible: Way. 

N. — Well, I have not consulted with any of 
the other Churches. We intend to invite them 
to come in. 

Dr. — If it is to be a union meeting, is it not 
rather a strange proceeding for one of the parties 
to the union to precipitate matters to the extent 
of engaging the evangelists, fixing the time, and 
everything of that kind, without taking the 
other parties to the union into counsel at all? 
Rather a one-sided union, is it not ? 

N. — I will tell you; the evangelists who are 
coming are eminently Scriptural. 

Dr. — From the Disciple stand-point. 

N. — Yes, sir; they preach the pure Gospel in 
all its plainness and simplicity. 

Dr. — And they hope that "in all simplicity'' 
we will receive them to hold their meetings in 
our church, and consider them union meetings? 

N. — Yes, sir. I will just read a letter which 
I received by this morning's mail from Mr. 
Slashaway, one of the two evangelists, and the 
principle speaker (Reading) : 

"Dear Brother, — Tell the people we preach 
the pure Gospel ; we give no quarter to man-made 
creeds, human names, and denominational 
institutions which perpetuate divisions among 
Christians. We believe the Bible teaches that 
the Church should be one/' 



The: Bibi^ Way. 35 

At this point Charley, becoming interested, 
said : ■ 

C. — Excuse me, Mr. Narroway, would you 
read that last sentence again? 

N.— "The Bible teaches that the Church 
should be one/' 

C. — Does Mr. Slashaway say which one? 

N. — No, I think not. (Continuing to read) : 

"We believe that as Christ prayed for union, 
and conditioned the salvation of the world upon 
the oneness of His believers, that the division 
of his Church into denominations is the greatest 
sin of Christendom." 

Dr. — Therefore he seeks to add another one 
wherever he can find an opportunity. (Mr. 
Narroway was aching to escape by employing the 
usual answer that they were not another denomi- 
nation but the Church of Christ, but the presence 
of Charley, and a recollection of their conver- 
sation yesterday had a wholesome effect and he 
kept silent. The Doctor continued) : I noticed 
by last week's paper that in a certain community 
where the people were in peace, and souls were 
being saved — the community having all the 
Churches it could well support, and all working 
heroically and in perfect unity for the good of the 
community — that this Mr. Slashaway went in, 
and, as the people expressed it, created Bedlam. 



36 The; Bible; Way. 

He stirred up such strife and division, bitterness 
and heartburnings as were never known in that 
community before. Berated the people on the 
evils of so many Churches, and then organized 
another little denomination, mostly of those 
whom he had succeeded in souring against the 
other Churches, and called it the Christian 
Church. He first requested the privilege of hold- 
ing a few meetings in one of the churches, 
declaring he had no intention of organizing an- 
other Church, and then did his best to capture 
the whole Church, building, and all. I was talk- 
ing with a man who had been on the ground, 
and he said this evangelist, Mr. Slashaway, "was 
so sleek and oily that at first some of the simple 
ones fell dead in love with him, and were almost 
ready to eat him up ; but after he had done his 
work and gone, the only thing they regretted was 
that they had not done so." You people have 
learned to work that union dodge to perfection. 
Your kind of union reminds me of the story of 
the wolf, which went over to the sheepfold one 
night and saw a nice, fat little lamb standing out 
near the gate, and beckoning to the lamb said, 
"Come on over to our den and let's have union; 
we do hate these divisions." The lamb thought 
that sounded nice, and inquired, "What kind of 
union do you propose? State the terms, please !" 



Ths Bibi^ Way. 57 

To which the wolf responded, "Certainly; these 
are the terms: I'll eat you up and then we'll be 
one." Now, Mr. Narroway, that is the kind of 
union you people are after. You assume that 
you are the Church of Christ, not part of it, but 
the zvhole of it; that you have all the truth, and 
others are all in "Babylon." If they will come 
to your platform, you will have union. So would 
any other Church on similar terms. You are no 
more opposed to divisions than are others, and 
the remedy you propose is not only absurd, but 
preposterous, for it is not union on the Bible, but 
on your interpretation of the Bible which you 
propose. The union Christ prayed for was not 
as you imagine, one great ecclesiastical organ- 
ization under one particular form of govern- 
ment, as this would doubtless be impracticable; 
but rather unity of spirit, purpose, feeling, and 
effort for the salvation of the world. The sooner 
the Disciple, or Campbellite, body will cease its 
sectarian war, and unite with other Churches to 
bring about this kind of true unity, the better 
it will be for the cause of Christ. I can not offer 
you our church for any such purpose as you 
propose. 

N. — I presume, then, I may as well be going. 
Good morning ! 

Dr. and C. — Good morning! 



38 The Bibus Way. 

C. — Well, Doctor, I would not have missed 
this conversation for anything. Is it not wonder- 
ful how that cry for "Christian union" does take 
with a certain class of people ? But it astonishes 
me how any sensible people, even among them- 
selves, can be so blinded as to imagine they 
possess any characteristics which entitle them 
to be recognized as anything else than a sect, and 
the most sectarian of all the sects. 

Dr. — Yes, Charley, they live on contention. 
Go to their churches and what do you hear? 
Very frequently other Churches and ministers 
mentioned by name and publicly condemned; 
the Methodist's decided declarations of an 
experimental knowledge of religion is especially 
unbearable. They bring all possible reproach on 
the "testimony meeting/' "witness of the Spirit/' 
"feeling saved/' and ask in ridicule, "Where do 
you feel it — in the back, or in your stomach, or 
where ?" Now, while no sensible Christian con- 
tends that religion consists in feeling, yet a 
religion that has in it no feeling is not the religion 
of the Bible. They are the greatest sheep-thieves 
you ever saw, will compass sea and land to make 
one proselyte from another Church, and rejoice 
more over that one than over ninety and nine 
persons who need repentance. I have been told 
that the method of their evangelists is to go into 



The Bible Way. 39 

the homes of members of other Churches and 
begin as follows : "Why, how do you do, Mrs. 
Blank? Sister Jones told me you would feel 
very much slighted if I did not call I" Before 
leaving they will mark the family Bible at "into" 
"out of/' "buried/' and some other stock-in-trade 
passages, denounce the evils of "sectarianism/' 
of which they are the most decided living 
examples, insist that there are "too many 
Churches," "too much expense," therefore they 
proceed to organize another one to be an addi- 
tional expense on the community. 

At this juncture the Doctor being called 
away, arrangements were made to continue the 
coversation the next evening. 

After leaving Dr. Fairplay's study, young 
Wideawake was walking homeward when a 
flaming poster caught his eye, headed: "Take 
THE WATER ROUTE." Picking it up he read: 
"Except a man be born of water, ... he can 
not enter the kingdom of God;" "They went 
down into the water, and he baptized Him ;" 
"We are buried in baptism;" "$5.00 to the 
person finding the Scripture which commands 
one person to sprinkle unmixed water upon 
another for any purpose. Apply at the Campbell 
Street Christian Church." 



40 The: Bibue; Way. 

As he finished reading, a tall, slender gentle- 
man, stepping up to him, said : "Excuse me, but 
is your name Wideawake?" "It is," said 
Charley. 

"Mine is Nightingale," continued the stranger. 
"Perhaps you had noticed that Mr. Slashaway 
and his singer were to begin meetings in the 
Campbell Street Christian Church next week. I 
am Mr. Slashaway's assistant, his singer. 
Brother Narroway, the pastor, told us you were 
thinking of uniting with some Church, and I 
thought you might be induced to follow your 
Savior by being 'buried in baptism/ " 

C. — My parents are staunch believers in 
immersion. I have always been taught to regard 
it as the binding form prescribed in the Scrip- 
tures. Recently, however, I have formed a 
resolution to test every doctrine by the Word of 
God alone. I rather like the way the Methodists 
put it. "Whatsoever is not read therein [that 
is, in the Bible, not thereinto, but therein'], nor 
may be proved thereby, is not to be required of 
any man that it should be believed as an article 
of faith." I see that to make prescriptions or 
impose obligations which Christ has not made is, 
of all things, most calculated to create divisions 
and schisms among the followers of Christ. 
Now, either Christ has, or has not, prescribed 



The; Bibi,£ Way. 41 

and made obligatory the manner in which the 
water is to be applied in the ordinance of Chris- 
tian baptism. If he has, I am determined to 
know it; but if there is no such prescription in 
the Bible, I am determined, in the interest of 
harmony and Christian union, so far as I am 
concerned, to let the old superstition die, and 
more, to do all in my power to break down the 
sectarian walls which (if it is not in the Bible) 
the exclusive immersionists have built up as high 
as heaven to break the unity of the Church. 
Now, if the Bible has laid down prescriptions 
and obligations, it certainly ought to be so clear 
that the earnest, honest inquirer could find them, 
and know exactly what the prescription is. But 
I find, among those who insist that God does 
prescribe mode, some declaring that the specific 
prescription is for three dips of the body forward 
into the water, and that nothing else is baptism ; 
others as strenuously contending that the Bible 
makes no such prescription, that three dips for- 
ward is more than the Bible commands, and 
that the Bible specifically commands only one 
dip ; and I have thought if each of these believes 
the other is wrong, is it not possible that both 
are mistaken, and that the Bible does not pre- 
scribe mode at all? I have been carefully read- 
ing the Bible of late, but somehow I have failed 



42 The Bible Way. 

so far to find the prescription commanding 
immersion, or even to come across the word 
immerse anywhere in the Book. I had been led 
to suppose, from the sermons and conversation 
to which I have listened, that the Bible was full 
of such references. I have asked others, and so 
far no one has been able to find it for me. I 
have a young Methodist friend who says if I 
will let him see the passage when I have found 
it he will go with me and be immersed. My 
resolution is to go The Bible Way. I have taken 
as my motto, "Whatsoever He saith unto you, 
do it." Can you help me by finding the passage ? 

Rev. Nightingale. — Did you notice that 
reward we offered in that poster you were just 
reading ? 

. C. — Yes, sir. But what had that to do with 
my question? 

Rev. NightigalE. — It has this to do with it : 
If the Bible nowhere commands sprinkling or 
pouring, then it must command immersion. 

C. — I fail to see why. 

Rev. Nightingale. — Well, the Scriptures 
command baptism; and as no one contends for 
baptism in any other way than by sprinkling, 
pouring, or immersion, it follows, does it not, 
that if the Bible does not command sprinkling 
or pouring it must command immersion ? 



The Bible Way. 43 

C. — Certainly not. If that were true, then 
if the Bible nowhere commands immersion, it 
would follow that it must command affusion — 
sprinkling or pouring — would it not ? 

Rev. Nightingale. — I suppose it would. 

C. — Very well, please show me, then, where 
it commands immersion. 

Rev. Nightingale. — We prefer to put it the 
other way, and insist that affusionists show us 
where the Bible commands sprinkling or pour- 
ing. 

C. — I do not doubt that. If you can persuade 
them that if the Bible does not command sprink- 
ling or pouring it must command immersion, that 
would certainly be your easiest way to prove 
immersion ; but I can not be so persuaded. I do 
not like to differ with you, but I believe it quite 
possible for a word, such as baptize, to express 
what may be accomplished in any one of a 
number of ways. 

Rev. Nightingale. — My young friend, you 
astonish me. Don't you know that it is impossi- 
ble for a word — as baptize — to express a result 
which can be accomplished by either sprinkling, 
pouring, or immersion? The word must specify 
some one action; any other teaching produces 
more doubt than the writings of Paine or Inger- 
soll. An infidel, hearing that the Bible prescribes 



44 The Bible; Way. 

no particular form of action for Christian bap- 
tism, said that such teaching demonstrates what 
the skeptic has always claimed; viz., that the 
Bible does not prove anything. 

C. — If you will find me that infidel outside 
of Barnum's menagerie or an insane asylum, I 
will see that you are liberally rewarded. Sup- 
pose we apply your principle to some other 
w r ords, take the word wet, for instance. A 
father commands his boy to wet his ax before 
grinding it, — what particular, specific act does 
that command require? Will the boy not fully 
obey that command by either dipping the ax in 
water or by sprinkling or pouring water upon 
it? If the command to wet the ax does not 
specifically command sprinkling, does it there- 
fore specifically command immersion? That is 
what your theory leads to. 

Rev. Nightingale.— I suppose the word wet 
does not necessarily specify what the particular 
action shall be. 

C. — I thought you said a word must specify 
some one action ; and that it is impossible for 
a word to express a result, or the accomplish- 
ing of a result, in any one of a number of ways. 

Rev. Nightingale. — Our authors have 
always contended that the word baptize must 
mean specifically either to sprinkle or to pour or 



The: Bibi,^ Way. 45 

to immerse, or else it could mean nothing. Here 
are their words : "Does baptize mean anything?" 
"Can we understand what it means?" "To say 
that the Bible does not prescribe any particular 
or specific action for Christian baptism is to say 
that we can not tell what language means, and 
consequently God has made no revelation to us." 

C. — I do not care what your "authors" have 
said. What I am after is what God has said. 
I presume only your illiterate men would talk 
that way. 

Rev. Nightingale. — They are our very 
ablest men. Our most trusted authors say that. 
For example, I have here in my pocket a book 
by Prof. A. S. Johnson, D. D., LL. D., entitled 
"Letters to a Young Methodist Preacher." Pie 
says on page 149 : "I present you with an acorn, 
and request you to plant it in good ground, which 
you do. After waiting ten years your tree 
blooms, and upon inspection, when the fruit 
comes to maturity, you find on one limb fully 
matured ears of corn, on another beautiful red 
cherries, and on another large yellow apples. 
What do you think of such a tree ? It is clearly 
an impossiblity. For God laid the principle deep 
down in the nature of things that every thing 
must produce its kind. Christ gave the word 
baptize to the world through His apostles. They 



46 The: Bibi^ Way. 

planted it in the soil of the human heart. It 
grew, and lo! the tree bears fruit. Let us 
examine it. On one limb there is sprinkling, on 
another there is pouring, on another immersion. 
What do you think of this tree and its fruit ? Do 
you think the original seed could bring forth 
three kinds of fruit so diverse? Is it not a fact 
that some grafting has been done? I challenge 
the Methodist Church to produce another word 
in any language that has as many and as diverse 
meanings." 

C. — That sounds very plausible, Mr. Nightin- 
gale, to the unthinking. Now, hold steady a 
moment till I prick that bubble! So that there 
can be no mistake, we will use a simple English 
word this time, and we will let the word wet be 
the acorn planted, and when the tree is grown 
we find upon inspection on one limb an ear of 
corn (sprinkle), on another we find a beautiful 
red cherry (pour), on a third a large yellow 
apple (immerse). And you exclaim with Dr. 
Johnson, Impossible! Surely some grafting has 
been done ! And yet every schoolboy ten years 
old and younger knows that he can wet his slate 
by sprinkling or pouring water on it as truly 
and certainly as he can by dipping it under water, 
and no D. D., or LL. D., no college president or 
Disciple preacher on earth, can use logic or 



The: Bible Way. 47 

sophistry enough to convince that boy against 
the evidence of his own senses that he can not 
wet his slate by sprinkling as well as by dipping. 
The difficulty with Dr. Johnson and all the rest 
of them appears to me to be this : They will 
have it that others believe the word baptize is 
the exact equivalent of the word sprinkle; also 
that it is the exact equivalent of the word pour; 
also that it exactly corresponds to the words dip 
and immerse. Now, others hold to no such 
absurdity. The Doctor's marvelous imaginary 
tree, bearing its long ears of yellow corn, its 
lucious, plump, red cherries, and tempting apples 
is more visionary than a baby's wildest dream. 
When you can show me why (if the word wet 
may express an action which can be accomplished 
by either sprinkling, pouring, or dipping, without 
necessarily specifying either) the same may not 
be true of the word baptize, I may be convinced, 
not before. But what I am after now is the 
Scripture passage which prescribes dipping for 
baptism. 

Rev. Nightingale. — I see you are deter- 
mined to fight immersion. 

C— On the contrary I am determined to 
accept it and be myself immersed, if you will 
show me the passage which commands it. 

Rev. Nightingale. — Bro. Slashaway can 



48 The: Bibi^ Way. 

show you the passage. He knows the Scriptures 
almost by heart. He can convince any one that 
we are right. Will you be home this evening? 

C. — Yes, sir. And I shall be happy to see 
you and Mr. Slashaway if either of you can 
give me any help, for I am getting almost des- 
perate in this matter. I must find that passage. 
Not only for my parents' sake, but for the friend 
of whom I spoke. 

Rev. Nightingale. — Very well, we will be 
there at seven o'clock. 

Promptly at the hour named the two evan- 
gelists, accompanied by Rev. Narroway, ap- 
peared at Charley's home, each carrying a 
number of books, among which were lexicons, 
commentaries, odd volumes of cyclopedias, 
histories, and several works on baptism. 

On entering the room, Mr. Slashaway could 
not disguise his discomfiture in finding, comfort- 
ably seated in a large easy-chair, an intelligent- 
looking gentleman of about middle age, with 
keen, sparkling eyes, and afi unmistakably 
clerical appearance, and as Charley, who had 
been introduced in the hall, stepping by, said, 
"Allow me the pleasure, Mr. Slashaway, of 
introducing the Rev. Dr. Fairplay, pastor of the 
Central Avenue Methodist Episcopal Church,** 



The: BiBivD Way. 49 

his countenance perceptibly fell. With consider- 
able nervousness, attributable, perhaps, to the 
rapidity with which he had been walking, Mr. 
Slashaway deposited his books on the center- 
table. 

We might say that Charley, being desirous of 
having the matter carefully sifted, had stepped 
into the Doctor's on his return, told him of the 
evangelist's intended visit, and asked him to be 
present. 

After a few commonplace remarks, Charley 
said: "I presume, gentlemen, we may as well 
begin at once. Mr. Nightingale has doubtless 
told you, Mr. Slashaway, that I have been look- 
ing for the Scripture passage where God com- 
mands immersion, or specifies 'the manner in 
which the water is to be applied in Christian 
baptism. Mr. Nightingale says he is sure you 
can find the passage. If so, you will take a 
great burden from my mind by doing so at 
once." 

Rev. S. — Have you found the passage which 
commands sprinkling? I believe it is universally 
admitted that immersion is Christian baptism. 
It is so clearly taught by the Word of God as 
to be admitted by all Churches and all authorities. 
Sprinkling is not so admitted, and therefore the 
controversy should be wholly on sprinkling, and 
4 



50 The Bibi,e Way. 

not on immersion. So I propose to change the 
question, and ask what proof is there that 
sprinkling is Christian baptism? Perhaps this 
Methodist brother could give us some light on 
that subject. 

Dr. — You are evading the question, Mr. 
Slashaway. This young man is in earnest ; give 
him an answer. If you can not answer his ques- 
tion, and desire to question me, I shall be pleased 
to hear from you. But first let me say your 
statement that "it is universally admitted that 
immersion is Christian baptism" is untrue. 
Multitudes who have been thoroughly immersed, 
some so thoroughly as to cause death, have not 
been recognized, even, by yourselves, as having 
ever received Christian baptism, and therefore 
it is not universally admitted that immersion is 
Christian baptism. 

Rev. S. — I mean immersion in the name of 
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as we prac- 
tice it. 

Dr. — I am sorry to say that you are wrong 
again, for you dip your candidates but once, 
while the Dunkards and several others give three 
dips ; and these insist that immersion as practiced 
by you is not baptism at all. You have also 
misstated the reason why others admit the 
validity of baptism as practiced by you. It is 



The) Bibi^ Way. 51 

not, as you say, because "immersion is so clearly 
taught by the Word of God/' though you con- 
stantly so represent. — (We maintain that im- 
mersion, as such, can not be found anywhere 
within the Word of God.) The reason we allow 
it is simply because the Bible, in commanding 
baptism, does not specify how the water shall 
or shall not be applied, and therefore we refuse 
to be a party with those who, as we believe, add 
to the Word of God, and put a "yoke upon the 
necks of the disciples" which God never put 
there, by insisting, contrary to Scripture, on one 
particular mode. We do not feel at liberty to 
countenance such despotism. If others prefer to 
practice immersion we are ready to allow them; 
but we demand liberty of conscience, too, and 
we are not ready to come under a yoke which 
we are confident Christ never imposed, nor to 
become the instruments of thus destroying the 
liberty of others and lording it over their con- 
sciences. This young man knows that to unite 
with a Church which teaches prescription as to 
mode, means not only that he can have no choice 
himself, but that he must, while in that Church, 
insist upon all others that the Bible prescribes 
mode, and must, while there, regard all who 
have not been immersed as unbaptized. He real- 
izes that this is an awful responsibility to take 



52 Th£ Bibus Way. 

upon himself, and he insists upon knowing De- 
fore he takes it, the certainty of his ground. If 
immersed in a Church which does not teach pre- 
scription as to mode, the case would be far dif- 
ferent, for there he would not be required to 
regard others as unbaptized, nor to insist that 
those he persuaded to come with him must also 
be immersed, without being able to show them 
any requirement for it. Realizing the difficulty 
into which he has placed you, you now propose 
to demand of him where the Bible prescribes 
sprinkling, a thing which he has never pretended 
to claim, and in case he fails in that, to say, "If 
the Bible does not prescribe sprinkling it must 
prescribe immersion/' an absurdity he has al- 
ready fully exposed to Mr. Nightingale. The 
controversy does not turn, as you say, on sprink* 
ling, but it is simply this : Does the Bible pre- 
scribe the mode in which water shall be applied 
in Christian baptism ? Will you do as the young 
man requests — cite him to the passage which 
prescribes immersion? 

Mr. Slashaway had never felt the force of 
words more keenly than these utterances of Dr. 
Kairplay, and was forced to the conviction, in 
a manner which surprised himself, that their 
usual maneuvering on those lines would have to 
be instantly abandoned. Turning to Charley, he 
said: 



Th£ Bibi,£ Way. 53 

R$v. S. — If you had only understood the 
Greek, Mr. Wideawake, or the meaning of the 
Greek word baptizo, the command would have 
been very plain to you as a command to immerse, 
but I have a number of Greek lexicons here with 
which I think I can convince you. 

C. — Just a moment, Mr. Slashaway, before 
reading from that book. Whom are those lexi- 
cons written by, God or men? 

Rev. S. — By men, of course. 

C. — Well, now, I know nothing about the 
Greek, or Greek lexicons, and I do n't know that 
God is going to judge me by them. What I want 
to know is whether this Bible, as we have it, 
anywhere commands immersion, and that so 
clearly that any plain English Bible student can 
see it for himself without any words of explana- 
tion from anybody. If so, will you please give 
me the passage? 

Rev. S. — There are passages which certainly 
allude to immersion, and others where it is evi- 
dent immersion was practiced. 

C. — That may be true. I think I know what 
passages you refer to. I have always been 
taught so to regard them also, but the less I 
study of what men say about these passages, 
and the more I study of what God Himself says, 
the less certain I am that my former teaching 



54 The: Bibus Way. 

is correct. I see so many passages which seem 
to look the other way. But whether that is true 
or not does not especially affect my case. What 
I want to know is this : Has God commanded 
me to be immersed? — that is the question. If 
so, will you at once give me the passage? 

Rev. S. — I see you and your assistant here 
(glancing at the Doctor) intend to hold me to a 
positive command, and so I may as well state to 
you first as last, that it is not in our English 
Bible, commonly known as the "Authorized," or 
King James Version. And the reason is that it 
is not a faithful translation. It was made by 
Pedo-baptists. If this word (baptize) had been 
everywhere translated instead of being simply 
transferred, wherever you now read baptize you 
would have read immerse, and the commission 
would then have read, "Go ye into all the world 
and disciple all nations, immersing them." 
Campbell's Bible and the Baptist version both 
render it immerse, and in this respect are faith- 
ful to the original. 

C. — Did our translators not know how the 
word should have been rendered, or were they 
too depraved to translate it as it should be? 

Rev. S. — They knew very well how it should 
have been translated, but they were Pedo-bap- 
tists, and hence prejudiced against immersion; 



The; Bible Way. 55 

and besides their hands were tied, as one of the 
king's restrictions upon them was that they were 
to retain old ecclesiastical words, and another 
that they were to follow a former translation 
(the Bishops' Bible) as far as the original would 
permit. 

C. — What did the translators of the Bishops' 
Bible call the ordinance of baptism? 

Rev. S. — They also rendered it baptise. 

C. — Were they prejudiced against immersion, 
too? 

Rev. S. — Yes. This book [taking from the 
table a book entitled, "History of Sprinkling," 
by Rev. L. C. Wilson] says, page 78: "These 
proud and unscrupulous bigots used every means 
to bring about the change [to sprinkle] ; . . . 
a happy thought came to them: We will not 
translate the word at all, but transfer it," etc. 
Wilson says these bishops were "wicked and god- 
less" men. 

C. — Were there any English translations be- 
fore the Bishops'? 

Rev. S. — Yes. The King James Version ap- 
peared in 161 1, the Douay Bible in 1609, the 
Rheims in 1582, the Bishops' in 1568, the Geneva 
in 1557, Cranmer's in 1540, Taverner's in 1539, 
Matthew's in 1537, Coverdale's in 1535, Tyndale's 
in 1525, and Wyclif's in 1380. 



56 The: Bibi^ Way. 

C. — How did all these versions render the 
word baptizo when speaking of the ordinance of 
Christian baptism? 

Rev. S. — They all rendered it baptize, not a 
single one by immerse. 

C. — Were these translators all affusionists, 
and prejudiced against immersion? 

The questions were becoming somewhat em- 
barrassing to Mr. Slashaway; but he saw no 
means of evading an answer, and so replied that, 
with perhaps the exception of the Bishops' and 
those which followed, he would have to admit 
they were all immersionists. At least that their 
writers so claimed. 

Dr. Fairplay. — Are we to understand you 
that all these translators (immersionists and af- 
fusionists together) agree in giving us unfaith- 
ful translations, so far as this word is concerned, 
and that it remained for Alexander Campbell 
and the Baptists (who of course could not be 
supposed to be prejudiced at all), to give us 
faithful translations so far as this word is con- 
cerned ? 

Rdv. S. — Yes, sir. 

Dr. F. — Those who can believe that, Mr. 
Slashaway, must have the gift of a sublime and 



The; Bible Way. 57 

irresistible faith, or be possessed of a degree of 
credulity which does not often fall to the lot of 
reasoning men. Surely I can conceive of no 
"mountains" that such a faith could not remove ! 
The translators of our common English Bible 
Pc do-baptist si They were, but what do you 
mean by a Pedo-baptist ? May he not be an im- 
mersionist? A Pedo-baptist is simply one who 
believes in baptizing infants. Our translators 
were as staunch immersionists, sir, as you are, 
though you have heralded to the ends of the 
earth that our Bible is a "Pedo-baptist transla- 
tion/' seeking to make the impression that it is 
the translation of affusionists. I should think 
for very shame it was about time to stop that 
kind of business. Our translators lived in a 
country and at a time when infant baptism by 
immersion was the law of the land. I see you 
have a Baptist history on the table there (Ive- 
mey's History of English Baptists). Turn to 
page 138 in that book, and you will find the 
author saying, in speaking of the years 1616 to 
1633 in England : "Immersion was incontroverti- 
bly the universal practice in England at that 
time." Dr. Graves, immersionist, also says, 
quoting Wall and indorsing it: "As for sprink- 
ling, properly called, it seems it was, at 1645, 
just then beginning, and used by very few. It 



58 The: Bibu$ Way. 

must have begun in the disorderly times after 
1 641, for Mr. Blake, who lived in England in 
1644, had never used, nor seen it used." I see 
also you have Alexander Campbell on the table. 
On page 140 (Baptism) he says: "The translat- 
ors of the common version were all, or nearly 
all, genuine Episcopalians, and at the very time 
they made the version (1611), were accustomed 
to use a liturgy which made it a minister's duty, 
in the sacrament of baptism, to take the child 
and 'dip it in the water.' " So say all your au- 
thorities when arguing on the history of immer- 
sion. The play on the word "Pedo-baptists" has 
given you people a fertile field from which to 
collect your so-called "concessions" of Pedo-bap- 
tists. You might as well quote from yourselves, 
gentlemen, and call them "concessions." The 
bulk of your so-called conceders who have testi- 
fied in your favor were as staunch immersionists 
as you are. 

Rev. S. — I think we may as well leave the 
question of versions. 

Dr. — Not just yet, Mr. Slashaway. It may 
be a little uncomfortable for you, but I have a 
few more questions to ask. I see the Baptist 
Bible Society, on page 45 of their Report for 
1840, accuse the British and American Bible So- 
cieties of "combining to obscure a part of the 



The Bible Way. 59 

Divine Revelation, and by this means propagat- 
ing their peculiar sentiments, and diffusing the 
opinions of a party." Do you approve such 
statements ? 

Rev. S. — That is unquestionably what they 
are doing. If they had not done so, this young 
man would have had no difficulty in finding im- 
mersion plainly commanded. 

Dr. — Do Baptists and Disciples publish and 
circulate the Authorized Version? 

Rev. S. — O yes. The others of which I spoke 
have never really taken the place of the common 
version. We use the Authorized in all our 
churches, and circulate it among our people. 

Dr. — I thought you accused those who did 
that of "obscuring the Divine Revelation, propa- 
gating the peculiar sentiments of Pedo-baptists 
and diffusing their opinions." Do you think it 
is right for you to do what you condemn others 
for doing? 

Rev. S. — O, well, you see, we accompany the 
Word with proper instruction, explaining all this 
from our pulpits, and in our books and period- 
icals. This is the only way to expose the fraud. 

Dr. — Aye, and the only way to convince 
them that immersion is divinely commanded. 

Rev. S. — I suppose so. 

Dr. — I believe it ! And the confession is fatal 



60 The: Bibu: Way. 

to your theory, for it forces the conclusion that 
the word is so used in the New Testament that 
if one — such as this young man — is left to judge 
of its meaning by its context in the New Testa- 
ment, without any "instruction" from immersion- 
ist teachers, or books, or any false translation, 
such as that of Alexander Campbell, he will see 
that it can not mean immerse. What do you 
think of that, Charley? 

C. — Until I began to study the Book itself, 
and not what men have said about the Book, I 
had always supposed, from what I heard, that 
immersion was plainly commanded in our Eng- 
lish Bible. Do not immersionists constantly say, 
"We are perfectly willing to risk our case with 
the present Pedo-baptist version, imperfect as it 
may be?" 

Rev. S. — Yes, sir, we do. 

C. — Then please hesitate no longer, but give 
me the passage at once, without trying to teach 
me Greek, where God commands me to be im- 
mersed. 

Rev. Narroway, who had been considerably 
agitated as he saw the great immersionist cham- 
pion being more and more hardly pressed, said 
in a loud whisper: "The lexicons, Bro. Slasha- 
way, the lexicons ! Why not appeal to them ?" 
But that gentleman, divining what awaited him 



The; Bible Way. 6i 

when he should make his appeal to the lexicons, 
and being exceedingly loath to leave Wilson, his 
favorite author, especially since this book had 
been so flatteringly commended by their people, 
press, and publishing houses, said: 

Rev. S. — I see on page 79 of this book, Wil- 
son says : "In the Septuagint Greek — in 2 Kings 
v, 14; Isa. xxi, 4; Job ix, 31, et al. — they (mean- 
ing the translators of the common English Bible) 
found the word baptizo; but in these places they 
translated it/ J 

Dr. F. — Translated what? baptizo? 

Rev. S. — Yes, sir. 

Dr. F. — But, sir, the translators of our Bible 
were not translating the Greek Septuagint. The 
Septuagint is itself only a Greek translation of 
the Hebrew Scriptures; consequently they were 
not translating the word found in the Septuagint, 
even if that word had been baptizo in all the 
passages cited by Mr. Wilson, which it was not. 
I see you have Dr. Dungan's work on the table 
here, called "On the Rock," which would better 
be called "On the Sand." On page 158 of this 
book I see he says, "I do not know that our 

TRANSLATORS WERE INFLUENCED BY THE SEPTUA- 
GINT IN THEIR TRANSLATION." 

Rev. S. — Did you say that baptizo is not the 
word, even in the Septuagint? 



62 The: Bible: Way. 

Dr. F. — Yes, sir. I say that in some of the 
passages cited — for instance Job ix, 31 — baptizo 
is not the word even in the Septuagint ; the word 
is bapto, which is an entirely different word, and 
never once used in all the Bible for the ordinance 
of baptism. It is a word which, according to 
immersionist authors themselves, is used to ex- 
press that which may be done by sprinkling as 
well as by dipping. (See Alex. Carson, page 44, 
and many others.) This, immersionist authors 
once all denied (See Dr. Gale and others) ; now 
their scholars all admit it. Further, Wilson boasts 
that our translators translated the word found 
in Isa. xxi, 4, and that the Septuagint has in 
this place baptizo. Yes, but did the translators 
render the Hebrew word (baath), which the Sep- 
tuagint renders baptizo, by the English dip or 
immerse? That is what Wilson is trying to es- 
tablish. They did not ; but they render it "fear- 
fulness affrighted me," where to render it dip, 
plunge, or immerse would make nonsense. The 
Hebrew word in the other passage (2 Kings v, 
14) is tabal. True tabal, which our translators 
render dip in this passage, is once only — viz., in 
this passage — rendered by baptizo in the Greek 
Septuagint. No one can believe that the Greek 
translators of the Hebrew Scriptures rendered 
the same Hebrew word {tabal) fourteen times 



Ths Bibi,£ Way. 63 

by bapto and once by baptizo by mere chance, 
and without reason. The fact is, they knew that 
baptizo was used among the Jews to mean cere- 
monial cleansing or purification, and for that 
reason, and for no other, they used baptizo in- 
stead of bapto in 2 Kings v, 14. The solitary 
instance in which the dipping (if dipping it was) 
resulted in cleansing was that of Naaman; and 
in that case, and in that only, the Greek transla- 
tors used baptizo to express that cleansing. As 
Dr. Fairfield says : "They did not use bapto four- 
teen times, and then use baptizo once, because it 
meant the same thing as bapto, but because it did 
not mean the same thing," which is the strongest 
possible proof that the Greek translators of the 
Old Testament did not believe that baptizo meant 
to dip. Further, it is by no means certain that 
our translators are correct in rendering the He- 
brew word tabal by dip in 2 Kings v, 14. For, 
first, mark you, the command of the prophet (v, 
10) was not that Naaman should dip himself 
seven times, but that he should "go and wash 
in Jordan seven times;" and the legal mode for 
cleansing from the pollution of leprosy was not 
dipping but sprinkling. (See Lev. xiv, 7.) This 
law required that the leper should be sprinkled 
seven times. Also the ancient custom of bathing 
or washing at rivers was usually by affusion. 



64 The Bible; Way. 

(See Dr. Smith's Dictionary of Christian An- 
tiquities under the article "Loutron.") In fur- 
ther proof of this view the Latin translation (the 
Vulgate) renders the Hebrew word tabal, not 
immergo, which the immersionists theory would 
demand, but lavo, which means simply to zvash 
without regard to mode. The Latin has it, then, 
"He went and washed himself seven times at 
Jordan." So all the probabilities are that the 
washing was done by sprinkling and not by 
dipping at all; though it would not affect the 
case even if it had been done by dipping. Let 
it be further borne in mind that in no one of the 
sixteen instances in which tabal occurs in the 
Old Testament does it imply — and in most in- 
stances will not admit of — the idea of a total 
immersion. Hence, not even does the Hebrew 
word tabal (with which, however, we have noth- 
ing especially to do at present) answer to the 
immersionist's idea of baptizo. 

Rev. S. — But Wilson says that in Matt, xxvi, 
23; Mark xiv, 20; Luke xvi, 24; and John xiii, 
26, the same Greek word (meaning baptizo) is 
translated into plain English. 

Dr. — And in so saying he states what is ab- 
solutely untrue, for the word used in all these 
places is not baptizo at all, but bapto, which is, 
as we have shown, an entirely different word, 



Th£ Bibls Way. 65 

and is not once used to express the ordinance of 
baptism throughout the whole Bible. But why 
did he pass over in silence the only places in the 
New Testament where the word baptizo was 
translated into plain English by any other word 
than baptize? Can you imagine? 

Rev. S. — I can not. 

Dr. — Perhaps it would be well for you to 
give that subject a little careful thought. A 
good cause, Brother Slashaway, does not require 
such methods in its defense. 

C. — Did I understand you, Doctor, that the 
Greek baptizo is sometimes translated in our ver- 
sion by another English word than baptize? 

Dr. — Yes, sir. It is in four places : Luke xi, 
38; Heb. ix, 10; and twice in Mark vii, 4. 

C. — Well, our writers constantly say: "Not 
a single translation of baptizo can be produced 
in any Bible, in any language, to mean anything 
but immerse." Is it translated immerse in the 
four instances you speak of? 

Dr. — Your writers have said a good many 
things on this subject which will bear to be taken 
with some caution. No, Charley, it is not trans- 
lated immerse, or by a word that means immerse 
in any one of the instances given. In all four 
places it is translated wash, which denotes no 
particular mode of applying the element. Mary 

5 



66 The: Bibus Way. 

"washed" the Savior's feet with her tears. I 
would scarcely imagine she dipped them. Nearly 
all ancient washings of persons were by affusion, 
as we have seen. (See also reference made to 
this custom, 2 Kings ii, n.) But the word wash 
expresses no mode. On examining Bibles in 
other languages you will find the statement just 
as far from the truth. 

C. — In this book which Mr. Nightingale lent 
me, entitled, "On the Rock," by Professor Dun- 
gan, formerly of the Drake University, Des 
Moines, Iowa, I read (p. 164) : "When our 
translators' hands were untied they testified that 
baptizo meant to dip." 

Dr. — What amuses me is that immersionists 
should "tie up" their fellow immersionists in this 
manner, and what is still more funny is that the 
knot should have affected all the English trans- 
lators for centuries before it was tied. [Even 
Mr. Slashaway had to smile at the absurdity.] 
The "tie," Charley, is altogether fanciful, and 
what is still more fatal to the theory is, that when, 
as immersionists say, their hands were "untied" 
they did not testify "that baptize meant dip," but 
testified, as they always had, that the word did 
not specify mode. 

Rev. Narrow ay. — Then, doctor, it surely can 
not mean sprinkle. 



The: Bible Way. 67 

Dr. — Whom did you ever hear say it neces- 
sarily did mean sprinkle? I should think you 
people had put up and knocked down, killed, and 
buried that straw man of yours pretty nearly often 
enough to let him rest awhile peaceably in his 
grave now, without exhuming the corpse, every 
time the subject is mentioned, for a fresh en- 
counter. 

C. — Let us get back to the Bible, Mr. Slash- 
away. Your assault on our English Bible's trans- 
lation of the word baptize has led us a good way 
from the Bible itself. Let us get back. Is there 
anything in the Book to show me that God pre- 
scribes immersion, and makes that obligatory? 

Rev. Nightingale. — Give him the lexicons, 
Brother Slashaway, give him the lexicons ! 

Dr. — Do not be in a hurry about the lexicons, 
Mr. Nightingale, you will get to them quite soon 
enough to suit you. Doubtless you are aware, 
Mr. Slashaway, of some pressing reason why 
immersionists have, of late, with such practical 
unanimity selected immerse to express what they 
do in baptizing, instead of the plain Anglo-Saxon 
dip. A few years ago dip had the right of way 
(see Alex. Carson on baptism), but now immerse 
is the word. Perhaps we will ascertain some of 
the reasons before we get through. We are 
making very satisfactory progress. Immersion- 



68 The: Bibuj Way. 

ists make a great ado over our version because 
the translators, as they say, Anglicized the Greek 
baptizo instead of translating it into plain Eng- 
lish. Have they themselves translated it into 
plain English, or pretended to? Do they render it 
dip? On the contrary, they have done the very 
thing for which they condemn the transators of 
the Authorized and Revised Version; i. e., they 
have Anglicized the Latin immergo, and ren- 
dered "baptize" by "immerse," in all but one or 
two places, where "immerse" would not fit very 
nicely. Is not baptize as truly and plainly Eng- 
lish as immerse is? If not, why not? Can you 
tell? But if immerse is the proper word to trans- 
late baptizo, why do not the Latin versions ren- 
der it by immergo? Surely here is the place, if 
anywhere, where immerse should have been 
used if it is a proper translation. The Latins 
themselves rejected their own native immergo 
as "weighed in the balance and found wanting," 
and it remained for modern immersionists of 
English and American tongue to take up the 
cast-off garments of Rome as a suitable dress in 
which to clothe this sacred ordinance of God. 

Rev. S. — But our books and papers say that 
baptizo was never translated into Latin to mean 
anything but immerse. 

Dr. — And in so saying make themselves as 



Ths Bibi^e Way. 69 

ridiculous as they do in making the same asser- 
tion concerning our English version, which ab- 
surdity we have exposed. The fact is, it was 
never translated into any Latin Bible to mean 
immerse. If so, tell us where, will you? 

Rdv. S. — I am afraid I can not tell you. 

Dr. — Then it is high time you ceased trying 
to fool the people by telling them "it is never 
translated into a Latin Bible to mean anything 
but immerse. " 

Rev. S. — I will now appeal to the lexicons, 
as we consider them our great stronghold. 

Dr. — But Alex. Campbell says (Debate with 
Rice, pp. 96, 106), "No learned man will ever 
rest his faith upon dictionaries." Again: "The 
dictionaries are sometimes wrong, and that I can 
prove." But if you wish to make your appeal to 
the dictionaries, so let it be. They, too, like the 
English, Latin, and all other versions, are with 
us. But let us clearly understand our respective 
positions: The exclusive immersionist's idea is 
that the word baptize is specific; that is, that the 
word necessarily specifies some one particular 
mode or form of using the element; or, as you 
prefer to put it, some one particular action. Ours 
is that it is generic; that is, it does not neces- 
sarily specify any one particular action, but may 
be accomplished by any one of a number of 



70 The Bibi^ Way. 

acts. To illustrate : Wet is a generic word, since 
a thing may be wet by sprinkling, pouring, or 
clipping, without the word necessarily meaning 
either sprinkle, pour, or dip, to the exclusion of 
everything else. Sprinkle and dip, on the other 
hand, are specific words, necessarily indicating 
or expressing some one particular mode or ac- 
tion. Kill is generic, but shoot specifies how. No 
one can say that because wet does not mean 
specifically either dip, sprinkle, or pour, it can 
not mean anything, or because kill does not mean 
specifically and necessarily either shoot, stab, 
poison, drown, or hang, it can not mean any- 
thing. That would be nonsense, but it is the 
way your people argue concerning baptize. 

Now your contention is that the dictionaries 
specify how the water must be applied to effect 
baptism; viz., by immersion. We say the dic- 
tionaries, with one voice, prove your position 
false. Mark! our position is not that the word 
must mean sprinkle. If there was not a diction- 
ary on earth that defined baptizo by sprinkle, our 
position would still stand, for our contention is 
not that it must mean sprinkle, but that it de- 
notes a result which can be effected in any one 
of a number of ways ; that the word does not 
necessarily specify mode at all. Suppose there 
was not an English dictionary that defined wet, 



Th£ Bibijs Way. 71 

to sprinkle (and there certainly is not one that 
gives sprinkle as the first and principal mean- 
ing), but for all that, who would contend that, 
therefore, a thing can not be wet by sprinkling? 
Now, you hold that the dictionaries limit the 
meaning to immersion, and make that essential 
to baptism; we maintain that the dictionaries do 
not specify how the element must be applied, or 
in what quantities, or whether the subject must 
be applied to the element or the element to the 
subject, so that when Christ said, "Go baptize!" 
if he meant to specify, in these matters, we must 
find the specification outside of the word baptize, 
for it does not specify. 

Rev. S. — Yes, sir, that is the contention. We 
maintain that the word does necessarily specify 
the manner in which the contact is to be effected, 
and the dictionaries prove that to be immersion. 

Here taking from the table Alexander Camp- 
bell's "Baptism," and turning to page 122, in 
which is a long list of dictionaries quoted, he 
read the entire list of definitions through. 

Dr. F. — Campbell says (p. 122) the "Greek 
lexicographers are the most learned and the most 
competent witnesses in this case in the world." 
The first lexicon you quote from his book is 
Scapula, which, like Pasor, his third witness, is 
a mere abridgment of Stephanus. I will now 



J2 Ths Bib^ Way. 

disprove your position from your own authori- 
ties. Both Scapula, Pasor, and Stephanus give 
abluo and lavo as the only meanings the word 
has as an ordinance in the New Testament, giv- 
ing neither dip nor immerse as a New Testament 
meaning at all. Abluo, according to all Latin 
dictionaries, means "to wash, to make clean, to 
purify." Lavo means "to wash, bathe, to make 
wet, moisten, bedew," etc. Neither of these 
necessarily expresses any particular mode of ap- 
plying the water, and therefore these three first 
authorities quoted by you are entirely with us. 

Kouma, native Greek lexicographer, gives 
(i) To sink, put frequently into water, to be- 
sprinkle, shed forth or sprinkle. (2) To draw 
or pump water. (3) In an ecclesiastical sense, 
to baptize. 

Immersionists tell us no dictionary gives 
sprinkle as a first meaning. Even if that were 
true it would not affect the case, but it is false. 

Gazes, native Greek, (1) Breko (to wet, 
moisten or sprinkle), (2) Louo (to wash), (3) 
Antleo (to draw or pump water), (4) Baptizo 
(to baptize). 

What need have we of further witness? If 
these men did not know their own language 
there is little hope for us. These definitions 
make it certain that baptizo is not a specific but 
generic word. 



The; Bibi^s Way. 73 

Rost and Palm give, "To dip in or under 
often or repeatedly ; hence to moisten, pour over ; 
generally to sprinkle upon, to pour upon." 

Robinson says in the New Testament, 1st, 
"To wash, lave, cleanse by washing ; 2d, To wash 
one's self, to perform ablution; 3d, To baptize/' 
Then in a footnote he adds : "It would seem to 
have expressed not simply immersion, but the 
more general idea of ablution or affusion." This 
is all we could wish. His testimony is conclu- 
sively with us. 

Leigh says : "To wet, to plunge, and primar- 
ily (primarily, mark you), may signify any kind 
of washing, or immersion. It is taken also for 
any kind of washing, cleansing or purifying, 
even that where is no immersion, as Matt, iii, II, 
12 ; Mark vii, 4," etc. He then quotes Vossins 
where he says : "To sprinkle or cleanse the body 
sacramentally." 

Could words be plainer if we had framed 
them to sustain our position ourselves? 

Wolfius says : "Baptizo, in Luke xi, 38, means 
washing done by sprinkling." 

H. Cremer holds sprinkling in Ezek. xxxvi, 
25, to be baptism. All immersionist authorities, 
so far as we have been able to learn, suppress 
this. 

Grimshaw says: "To wash, dip, besprinkle." 
Wash is given first, then dip, then sprinkle. 



74 The; Bibi,e Way. 

And so I might go on through the whole list. 
There is probably not a dictionary on earth which 
holds with you that baptizo necessarily specifies 
the manner in which the subject and element 
must come in contact with each other in baptism. 
No wonder Alex. Carson says, "I have all the 
lexicographers against me," in the position that 
baptizo "always means to dip, never expressing 
anything but mode." Now, Mr. Slashaway, 
since the dictionaries are all against you, what 
have you to say? 

Ri;v. S. — I contend that in law we must apply 
to a word its primary meaning, and the commis- 
sion is law. 

Dr. — And you assume that immerse is the 
primary meaning of baptizo. This can not be 
proved ; there is strong evidence to the contrary. 
But even if it were true, the statement you base 
upon it is not true, as I will show you. There is 
another word in the commission — pneuma 
(ghost) — its primary meaning is wind. Now ap- 
ply your principle and it must read: "Go, dis- 
ciple all nations, baptizing them into the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
wind/' "Verily, verily, I say unto you except a 
man be born of water and of wind he can not 
enter into the kingdom of heaven." What non- 
sense ! 



Ths Bibu; Way. 75 

Rev. S. — But you are making the Word of 
God ridiculous. 

Dr. — No, sir, it is not I, but your principle 
applied which makes it ridiculous. 

The Greek and Latin fathers constantly 
speak of sprinkling as baptizing. Clemens of 
Alexandra, A. D. 190, Odys. II, 261, says: "This 
is a custom among the Jews to baptize upon the 
couch." Again: "The image of the baptism of 
the Bible was handed down from Moses to the 
poets thus — 'Having besprinkled herself with 
water, Penelope comes to prayer.' " 

Justin Martyr: "Sprinkling, with holy water, 

Novatian, A. D. 251, says: "He received bap- 
tism signified by the prophet," Isa. lvi, 15. 

Origen, born only eighty-three years after 
John died, Vol. IV, p. 231, says: "What makes 
you think that Elias, when he comes, will bap- 
tize, who in Ahab's time did not baptize the wood 
upon the altar?" Compare this with 1 Kings 
xviii, 31-38, where we are told the w r ater was 
'poured upon the wood. 

Novatian^ A. D. 251, says : "He received bap- 
tism in the bed on which he lay by being 
sprinkled." 

Ambrose, Apol. 59, says : "He who desired 
to be purified by typical baptism was sprinkled 
with a bunch of hyssop." 



76 The: Bibu; Way. 

Tertullian: "These two baptisms he shed 
forth from the wounds of his pierced side." No 
dipping here. 

Clemens: "Baptized a second time with 
tears." Odys. II, 649. 

Cyril of Jerusalem says: "Thou seest the 
power of baptism; ... be of good cheer; 
he will sprinkle you with clean water." 

John of Damascus reckons up seven baptisms ; 
the last, "that which is by blood and martyrdom." 

How is a man to be dipped in his own blood 
or tears? Will you resort to the metaphorical 
dodge, and say, "They were, as it were, over- 
whelmed?" That will not do; for, first, it con- 
tradicts the facts — they were not metaphorical, 
but real baptisms; and, second, metaphors are 
always based on realities, and one must corre- 
spond, at least in the main points, with the other. 
If dipping or immersing only is baptism, then 
shedding one's blood on himself can never change 
a literal dip into a metaphorical pour or sprinkle. 

Gentlemen, did these fathers understand their 
own language? If not, there is little hope for us 
learning it. 

C. — Mr. Slashaway, your appeal to the lexi- 
cons (human opinions) has taken us a long way 
from the Bible again. Let me ask you : Is there 
any proof in the Bible itself that God ever com- 
manded me to be immersed? 



The Bible Way. 77 

Rev. S. — I will make my next appeal to his- 
tory. 

C. — Do you mean sacred history, as recorded 
in the Bible ? 

Rev. S. — No, sir. I appeal to the history of 
the Church — the early Church after the Apostolic 
times. 

Dr. — What has that to do with the case ? 

Rev. S. — Living close to the Apostolic times, 
they must have known what was practiced by 
the apostles, and if they immersed, it is strong 
evidence that the apostles also immersed. 

Dr. — Then if, living so close to the Apostolic 
times, they practiced trine immersion (three 
dips), and baptized men, women, and children 
naked, put upon them the sign of the cross, laid 
upon them holy hands, anointed them with oil, 
put salt in their mouths before baptism, gave 
them milk and honey to drink after the devil 
had been expelled, is it also evidence that the 
apostles practiced all these abominable absurd- 
ities ? 

Rev. S. — O, these things were more than was 
commanded; they were superstitious additions. 

Dr. — Exactly. And how are you going to 
prove that immersion itself was not also one of 
their superstitious additions? This was the nat- 
ural way for such persons to reason: If a little 



78 The Bibi^ Way. 

water is good, more would be better, and so, to 
improve upon God's Word and ordinances, they 
introduce all these corrupt innovations, author- 
ity for which can not be found anywhere in. 
Scripture. Neander justly says: These "super- 
stitious persons imagined, from attaching too 
much importance to externals, that baptism by 
sprinkling was not valid." It was not expressive 
and emblematic enough to suit them in its orig- 
inal mode, so they made the putting off of the 
clothes represent the putting away sin. The 
naked body represented Christ upon the cross; 
the sign of the cross represented the crucifixion ; 
putting them under the water represented 
Christ's burial; three dips represented the three 
persons in the Godhead; lifting them out of the 
water represented the resurrection of Christ; 
anointing with oil represented the descent of the 
Holy Ghost, and so on to the end of the chapter. 
But where is the Scripture for all this? These 
fanciful representations took their rise in the 
superstitious minds of men who attached to bap- 
tism an importance never intended by the God 
of heaven. Baptism was no more intended to 
represent the burial and resurrection of Christ, 
than the naked body, before baptism, was in- 
tended to represent the naked body of Christ on 
the cross. The two had a common origin, and it 



Th£ Bibi,k Way. 79 

is time the old superstitions were both allowed to 
die. The first time immersion appears as a re- 
ligious rite was in these superstitious times. Ter- 
tullian is the first man who names it, and the 
first time he names it trine-immersion was the 
rite. We find sprinkling mentioned as valid bap- 
tism with the earliest mention of baptism in sec- 
ular history. 

Re)v. S. — I guess we had better go to the 
Bible. 

Dr. — I think so. 

Rev. S. — Now, this young man wants the 
place where God commands immersion. He ad- 
mits the Bible commands baptism, but can not 
be persuaded that the word baptize necessarily 
means immersion. This is my first Bible proof: 
Eph. iv, 5, says, there is "One Lord, one faith, 
one baptism." Now you admit that immersion 
is one baptism, the Bible says there is but one 
therefore immersion must be that one. 

The look of supreme satisfaction that came 
over Mr. Slashaway's face as he let fly this log- 
ical dart was most reassuring to his friends. 
They felt sure this went straight to the mark. 
But the ease with which the Doctor caught it 
upon his shield, and let it fall harmlessly to his 
feet perfectly astounded them all. 



80 The: Bib^ Way. 

To make it more impressive Mr. Narroway 
had interjected: 

"A Methodist brother stated to me that Bap- 
tists were unscriptural in baptizing when they 
believed in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, be- 
cause Paul said there was but one baptism. I 
replied that the Methodists were equally un- 
scriptural, as they also claimed two baptisms — 
water and Spirit. Of all who claim Holy Ghost 
baptism to-day the Quakers only are consistent 
with Paul's statement, but they also err in call- 
ing the gift of the Spirit a baptism." 

Dr. — Your Methodist brother must have been 
well informed to let you off so easy. But I be- 
lieve you did not tell us what he said in reply. 
It is quite true that the Bible commands, and 
that we have the example of the apostles for the 
practice of water baptism, but the application 
of water in any form, or in any name, does not 
constitute baptism separate from that which is 
effected by the Holy Spirit any more than the 
shadow of a man is to be considered as another 
and different being. The real baptism with the 
Spirit is merely symbolized by the ritual. The 
latter is of no value without the former (witness 
the case of Simon Magus). The one baptism 
of which Paul spoke is the baptism of the Spirit, 
of which water baptism is but the symbol or 



The; Bibijv Way. 8i 

shadow, and apart from which water baptism has 
no meaning. 

Paul says: "There is one Lord" (Jesus 
Christ), "one faith" (upon Jesus Christ), "one 
baptism" (into Jesus Christ), and that baptism 
is certainly not by water, for Paul distinctly says, 
i Cor. xii, 13, "For by one Spirit [not by one 
water] are ye all baptized into one body." Let 
us not fall into confusion by calling water bap- 
tism one, and Spirit baptism another. Spirit bap- 
tism is one and water baptism apart from it has 
no meaning. 

The three men were becoming exceedingly 
uneasy as they beheld their cherished system 
crumbling piece by piece, their strong fortifica- 
tions passing into the hands of the enemy, their 
heaviest artillery remorselessly silenced, and only 
one more position worthy of the name upon 
which they could now fall back. Concentrating 
all their forces upon Rom. vi, 4, the great im- 
mersionist general decided now to take his stand. 
And here is the way he opened fire : 

Rev. S. — Paul says: "We are buried in bap- 
tism" Rom. vi, 4, and Col. ii, 12. It is incon- 
ceivable that a man could be buried by sprinkling 
a little water on his head. If we are "buried in 
baptism" it must be an immersion, without an 
6 



82 Tut Bible Way. 

immersion there can be no burial; that being 
true, when God commands baptism he must mean 
immersion. 

Dr. — I think, sir, that you have put the case 
as strongly as I ever heard it put. You are now 
on what immersionists consider their strongest 
Bible argument. This is, so to speak, the Gibral- 
tar of their faith. I presume you will admit that 
if immersion is not in this passage it is nowhere 
to be found? 

Re;v. S. — I do, sir. If it is not here, it is 
nowhere in the Book. If we are wrong in this 
passage we are wrong throughout. 

Dr. — And I will now show you that you are 
wrong here, egregiously wrong. There is ab- 
solutely no such doctrine in the text. You think 
it inconceivable that a man could be buried by 
sprinkling a little water on his head. All such 
thrusts are aimed at imaginary foes, since no 
minister ever dreamed, when applying the water 
of baptism to the head of the candidate, that 
God intended him to bury the literal body in a 
physical element — such as water. We maintain 
that such a thought is as foreign to the text as 
miasma is to the pure water of the river of life. 

But, though it does not affect the case in the 
slightest, yet I may say, in passing, that quite as 
inconceivable things as you suggest constantly 



The Bible: Way 83 

occurred among the Romans, to whom these 
words are addressed. With them, the sprinkling 
of a handful of earth on a dead body constituted 
a legal burial. 

But, let me ask, what kind of objects do we 
usually bury — the things which are dead or those 
things which are alive? 

Rev. S. — Those which are dead, of course. 

Dr. — Then, if you were asked to go over the 
river to-morrow and bury a man, you would ex- 
pect to find a dead man there when you arrived ? 

Rev. S. — Certainly. 

Dr. — Suppose it should turn out to be the 
lather of the family — the old man — and when 
you reached the burying-ground they should 
bring forward one of the boys, who is still alive, 
and ask you to bury him instead of the old man ? 

Rev. S. — Why, nonsense, Mr. Fairplay ! What 
are you talking about? 

Dr. — I am simply illustrating what you peo- 
ple insist upon doing. The passage tells us that 
it is our "old man" that is crucified, destroyed, 
dead. Verse 2 reads "we that are dead;" verse 
8, "if we be dead ;" verse 6 shows that the "zve" 
which is dead means the "body of sin/' the "old 
man." Then that is the thing to be buried, and 
not the physical man, unless the physical man be 
dead. 



84 The Bible Way. 

Rev. S. — But we have to bury the physical 
man in order to get the "old man" under. It is 
impossible for us to reach the "old man" in any 
other way. 

Dr. — Very true! And should not that con- 
vince you that the construction you are trying 
to put upon the passage is impossible ? Read the 
passage carefully and you will see that God has 
not commanded you to bury the "old man' , (even 
when dead), much less to bury the physical man 
when not dead. If it is the physical man, Mr. 
Slashaway, that is dead, then by all means bury 
your dead, but if it is the "body of sin," "the old 
man," that is dead, then do not, for conscience' 
sake, go to burying something that is not dead, 
even for the purpose of burying something 
that is. 

Some of your people think it analogous to 
confining a criminal in prison. One of your min- 
isters once said to me, "It is the old man we 
bury," and then he asked, "When the criminal 
is confined, is not the old man necessarily con- 
fined with him?" We replied, "If it is the old 
man you bury, sir. then would to God you would 
keep him buried !" If the old man is necessarily 
confined with the criminal, is he not also, for 
the same reason, necessarily released with him? 
If so, to keep the old man confined you must 



Ths Bibi,e Way. 85 

leave the physical body there, too. Hence, if the 
analogy holds, in order to keep the "old man" 
buried, you must leave the physical body buried, 
too. But as that would, as the Scotchman said, 
"sartin drown 'im," we fear the number of your 
candidates for such burial would be exceedingly 
small. 

But the passage suggests another difficulty. 
What is the element, or thing, into which this 
"old man" is to be buried, according to the pas- 
sage? 

Rev. S. — Why, into water, of course. 

Dr. — I know that is what the creed of Camp- 
bellism says, although you profess to have no 
creed but the Bible. But does the Bible say so? 
Does this passage say so? 

Rev. S. — I do n't know that this passage says 
so, but that is to be taken for granted. 

Dr. — We Methodists are not in the habit of 
taking things for granted, Mr. Slashaway. Our 
motto is, "Whatsoever is not read in the Scrip- 
tures, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be 
required of any man that it should be believed as 
an article of faith." "Where the Bible speaks, 
we speak ; and where the Bible is silent, we are 
silent!" This young man's motto is, "Whatso- 
ever He saith unto you, do it." Read the pas- 
sage, and tell me what it says we are buried into. 



86 The Bibus Way. 

Rev. S. (after reading) — It says, "into 
death." 

Dr. — Then, it is not into water. But if into 
death, let me ask whose death? 

Rev. S. — Into Christ's death, I suppose. 

Dr. — You do not need to suppose anything 
about it. Verse 3 tells you it is His (Christ's) 
death. Now, will you tell me what the word bury 
means ? 

Rev. S. — It means to hide, to cover up, to 
put out of sight. 

Dr. — Then, when the "we," which we have 
seen is the "body of sin," the "old man," is 
buried into the death of Christ, it simply means, 
according to the passage itself, that our sin is 
hid, covered, put out of sight by the death of 
Christ. 

C. — Well, Doctor, I never saw that before. 
I have been misled by the sound of the w r ords, 
and have never really looked into their sense be- 
fore. Is that what David means when he says, 
"Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, 
w T hose sin is covered?' 

Dr. — Most assuredly. 

Rev. S. — Why is this said to be done, then, 
in, or by, or through baptism? What has bap- 
tism to do with it? 

Dr. — The Spirit's work in conversion results 



The Bibi,]$ Way. 87 

in a crucifixion of the "old man/' a death unto 
sin, a covering of our sin by Christ's death, and 
a resurrection from the death of sin into the life 
of righteousness. But as to what the specific ac- 
tion or mode of the operation of the Spirit is, 
which produces these results in us, this passage 
gives us not the shadow of a hint. As to the 
mode of the Spirit's operation, which is called 
baptism, we must look elsewhere; indeed it is 
remarkable (and if mode means anything ought 
to be deeply pondered by us) that everywhere in 
Spirit baptism He is represented as falling upon, 
coming upon, descending upon, poured upon, 
etc., never as our being dipped or plunged into 
Him. The "overwhelming" dodge which you 
people adopt here, where the modal dip or plunge 
fails you, is an overwhelming absurdity, as it 
has no foundation in Scripture. But the point 
now to be emphasized is, that this passage gives 
not a hint as to the mode by which these results 
which are wrought within us, and which are 
called a baptism, are brought about. 

Rev. S. — Do you mean to say, then, that there 
is in this passage no reference, in any way, to 
water baptism? 

Dr. — It is not necessary to say that. We all 
know that what is wrought by the Spirit is fre- 
quently, by an easy figure of speech, attributed 



88 The) Bibijs Way. 

to water ; for example (see John vii, 38-39), "Out 
of his belly shall flow rivers of living water, 
but this spake He of the Spirit." Also Isa. xliv, 
3 : "I will pour water upon him that is thirsty/' 
etc., but he immediately explains: "I will pour 
My Spirit upon thy seed," etc. Also John iii, 5 : 
"Except a man be born of water/' but He im- 
mediately explains, "even the Spirit." (Kai 
means even as much as it does and, but either 
way the meaning is the same. So we might give 
countless instances.) In the same way water 
baptism may be referred to here, and the work, 
which is really wrought only by the Spirit of 
God, may by this same figure be here ascribed 
to water baptism. Water throughout the whole 
Bible, when used in a religious sense, everywhere 
stands for and represents the work of the Spirit 
of God. Christ said of the sacramental bread, 
"This is my body." Now, it was not His body, 
if we speak literally, and He did not intend to 
be so understood. Yet the Roman Catholics 
have based upon such language their doctrine of 
transubstantiation ; that is, that Christ is actually 
present in the sacramental bread. So, when in 
figure He attributed to water baptism results 
which only the Spirit Himself could effect, He 
did not intend that such language should be ap- 
plied literally, yet the Roman Catholics, Pusey- 



Thk Bible Way. 89 

ties, and the Disciples of Alexander Campbell 
have so interpreted His language, and apply to 
water baptism effects which only the Spirit of 
God can possibly accomplish. 

I have, moreover, several objections to your 
interpretation of this passage, any one of which 
is fatal to accepting it as true. 

First. As Bishop Merrill says, "It violates 
all rule and all authority by making part of this 
one process literal, and part of it figurative." If 
part of it is literal, then all of it is; and if part 
of it is figurative, then all of it is. It will not do 
to say the crucifixion and death are figurative, 
referring to some mystical thing that we call 
sin, "the old man/' while the burial and resur- 
rection are literal, referring to our literal bodies. 
If you insist upon having the burial and resur- 
rection literal, then, to be consistent, you must 
also make the crucifixion and death such; but 
this you are not willing to do, as your candidates 
would certainly object to being literally crucified 
and put to death. Be consistent, brethren ; either 
cease literally burying the literal bodies of your 
candidates and citing this passage as your au- 
thority, or else put them literally to death before 
you proceed to bury them. 

Second. Your interpretation entirely mis- 
takes the points of comparison as brought out in 



90 The; Bibi<£ Way. 

this passage. The two things compared are, on 
the one hand, the literal body of Christ, which is 
crucified, dead, and buried. On the other hand, 
it is not our literal bodies which are to be cruci- 
fied, dead, and buried through baptism, but our 
old man which is to be crucified, dead, and buried 
by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, without ref- 
erence to the mode by which that crucifixion, 
death, and burial is accomplished, and this bap- 
tism is symbolized by water. 

As has been said, he who sees in this passage 
nothing but a reference to the mode of water 
baptism has not so much as caught one glimpse 
of its high significance. 

Third, Such an interpretation as you would 
give it puts the sacraments in the wrong place, 
and makes water baptism represent the death, 
burial, and resurrection of Christ, which it was 
never intended to represent, for this was the pur- 
pose of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. ( See 
i Cor. xi, 26 : "For as often as ye eat this bread 
and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death 
till He come/') Now, surely, there are not two 
sacraments to show, or represent, the same thing. 
Baptism with water everywhere represents the 
work done by the Spirit of God, and is every- 
where associated with it, as : "John indeed bap- 
tized with water, but ye shall be baptized with 
the Holy Ghost/' etc. 



Ths Bibu; Way. gt 

Now, to reverse this order and make baptism 
represent the work done by the Son of God, and 
the Lord's Supper represent the work done by 
the Spirit of God, or to change either one, is 
to pervert the ordinance, as Bishop Merrill so 
clearly shows. 

R£V. S. — You admit, then, that Spirit baptism 
always "results in a burial/' Very well, then, 
if Spirit baptism is a burial, why not admit that 
water baptism is a burial also ? 

Dr. — Not quite so fast ! Who said that Spirit 
baptism is a burial? Is it possible you can see 
no difference between results and the things 
which produce results? A bottle of poison may 
result in death, but who would confound death 
itself with a bottle of poison? 

Some of your people put the sophistry this 
way: "You admit that in Spirit baptism there 
must be a burial ; can not be Spirit baptism with- 
out. How, then, can there be water baptism 
without burial?" 

That sounds plausible, and has served you 
many a good turn in confusing the simple and 
trapping the unwary. To expose the sophistry 
it is necessary only to call attention to the fact 
that in Spirit baptism there is no burial; burial 
is simply a result, but is not in the baptism 
itself. We do not admit that "in Spirit baptism 



92 The Bibi^d Way. 

there must be a burial/' but that as a result of 
Spirit baptism there must be a burial (viz. : a 
burial of our sin, the "old man"). So likewise 
we deny that in water baptism there must be a 
burial. 

Water baptism does not symbolize effects of 
Spirit baptism (viz., death, burial, etc.), but sym- 
bolizes the baptism itself. If immersionists could 
only get it out of their heads that water baptism 
symbolizes the effects of Spirit baptism, and get 
it into their heads that it symbolizes Spirit bap- 
tism itself, which is represented as being by af- 
fusion, and not immersion, there would be an 
end of their difficulties, and these exclusive sec- 
tarian walls that have been erected by immer- 
sionists, to break the unity of the Church and 
deprive God's people of their heavenly birth- 
right (the liberty of choice in matters which God 
has left to choice), would crumble in the dust. 

Rev. S. — I have just one more question be- 
fore leaving Rom. vl, 4. When the disciples re- 
ceived the baptism of the Spirit, were they not 
filled with the Spirit? 

Dr. — Yes, sir. 

Ricv. S. — Then if they were -filled with the 
Spirit were not they, or at least their spirits, cov- 
ered, or overwhelmed by the Spirit — i. e., im- 
mersed in the Spirit? 



The; Bibi,e; Way. 93 

Dr. — Certainly not. It would be just as ab- 
surd to say that when you are filled with a good 
dinner, you, or your spirit (if we may separate 
the two) is overwhelmed by, or immersed in, the 
dinner. The fact is, instead of you being im- 
mersed in your dinner, your dinner is immersed 
in you. To say that when one thing Alls another 
it immerses, or if you prefer, overwhelms the 
thing it fills, is an overwhelming absurdity. 

Rdv. S. — Perhaps we had better leave this 
passage. I appeal to the baptism of Christ. Here, 
certainly, is a clear case of immersion. Matt, 
iii, 16, says, "When He was baptized he went up 
straightway out of the water/' which is proof 
positive that He was immersed; and if He was 
immersed, being an example for us, we ought 
also to be immersed. 

Dr. — You have assumed a number of things 
here, which perhaps it might be as well to prove. 
But first, suppose I allow that Christ was im- 
mersed (a thing which no man ever has been, or 
ever will be, able to prove), even then you have 
failed to answer this young man's question, 
which was for you to produce a single passage 
of Scripture where God positively commands us 
to be immersed. Even had we granted you all 
you desired concerning the passages you have 
quoted, you have not presumed to claim that 



94 The Bible Way. 

either of them positively commanded immersion. 
The best you could do with them was to infer 
immersion; and you, of all people on earth, who 
have rung the changes on "No human infer- 
ences," "No humanisms in ours," "No man-made 
creeds," etc., etc., ad nauseum, ought to be the 
last to do this. But here, again, you are doing 
the very thing for which you condemn others; 
viz., inferring, and that without any reason. Sup- 
pose Christ was immersed, His baptism was not 
an example for us. If it was, then we should not 
be baptized until thirty years of age, and we 
should always be baptized at, or in, a river, etc. 
Second, His baptism was not Christian baptism 
at all, for Christian baptism was not yet insti- 
tuted, nor for some time after, and it is not con- 
ceivable that He would be baptized in His own 
name. Nor was it John's baptism, for John bap- 
tized the people unto repentance, and Jesus had 
no sins of which to repent. It was no wonder, 
then, that John was surprised when Jesus came 
to be baptized, and said, "I have need to be bap- 
tized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?" Jesus 
explained, "Suffer it to be so now, for thus it 
becometh us to fulfill all righteousness ;" a com- 
mon expression for fulfilling the law. He was 
now about to take upon Him the priestly office, 
and the law (Num. viii, 7) for the ceremonial 



Ths Bibus Way. 95 

purifying of the priest was: "Thus shalt thou 
do unto them to cleanse them : sprinkle water of 
purifying upon them." Now, though Christ was 
not a priest after the Levitical order, yet He was 
a Priest "after the order of Melchizedek (Psa. 
ex, 4) — that is, as Priest His order was unique; 
and as the Levitical priest could appeal to his 
ceremonial setting apart by heaven's law as his 
authority to exercise his office, so Christ appealed 
to His ceremonial washing or baptism by John 
as His authority (Matt, xxi, 25). 

[After the appearance of the above argument 
in the first edition, an article in the Christian 
Oracle of Chicago (Disciple organ) in the issue 
of May 13, 1897, takes exception to the state- 
ment concerning Christ that "He was now about 
to take upon Himself the priestly office. " The 
objector holds that Jesus was not a Priest until 
after His death. 

The reader will see, of course, that even if 
the position in the criticism were correct, it would 
not affect the main argument. It is a merely in- 
cidental question that may be decided either way 
without materially affecting the case. We are 
gratified to note that the only criticism attempted 
is on an incidental question of this character. 

Let us, however, examine the reasons as- 



96 The: Bibi,£ Way. 

signed for the criticisms. We are told that our 
statement contradicts some of the plainest teach- 
ings of the Bible, for — 

1st. If Jesus became Priest at the time of 
His baptism, the law must have been changed at 
that time, "for the priesthood being changed, 
there is made of necessity a change also of the 
law." (Heb. vii, 12.) 

2d. As the old law was in force at the time 
of the baptism of Jesus, if He then became 
Priest He must have done so according to the 
old law which provided that the priests should 
come from the family of Aaron. (Ex. xxvii, 21, 
also xxviii, 43.) But in Heb. vii, 14, we read 
that "our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which 
tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priest- 
hood." 

3d. The water sprinkled upon those entering 
the Levitical priesthood was not pure, unmixed, 
but was mixed with something. (Leviticus, 
eighth chapter.) 

In the same chapter, verses 33-36, it says, 
"And ye shall not go out of the door of the taber- 
nacle of the congregation, in seven days," but in 
Mark i, 12, it is recorded that Jesus went imme- 
diately into the wilderness, therefore He did not 
go through the performance required to make 
Him a Priest. 



The; Bible; Way. 97 

4th. Jesus never claimed to be High Priest 
while here upon earth. 

5th. No inspired man has ever claimed He 
was. 

6th. If He became Priest at the time of His 
baptism, then there were two High Priests at 
the same time, which of course could not be true. 

7th. Christ's Priesthood should not change 
by reason of death (Heb. vii, 23-24). Therefore 
Christ could not have become High Priest until 
after His death ; but as His death did not occur 
for more than three years after His baptism, He 
could not have been initiated into His Priesthood 
at the time of His baptism. 

The shortest and most decisive way to answer 
these objections is to show how directly in con- 
flict with the Bible teaching is the position therein 
assumed. 

Our view of the Scripture teaching concern- 
ing this matter is that Jesus was a Priest while 
here in this world among men ; that it was only 
as God's High Priest He could possibly have 
acceptably offered the great sacrifice of His own 
body; that while He "came into the world" a 
Priest, He did not visibly take upon Him that 
office, and enter upon His priestly functions until 
after His formal consecration to that office by 
John at Jordan. It was in this sense that we 
7 



98 The Bibi,i$ V/ay. 

state "He was now about to take upon Him the 
priestly office." 

In proof of our position we offer the follow- 
ing Scriptures: First we have the unmistakable 
language of Heb. ix, II, "But Christ having 
come a High Priest of the good things to come," 
etc. This verse is the turning point of the con- 
trast between Jewish ritual and Christ's self- 
offering. As High Priest He is the Divine be- 
stower of good things to come, viz., redemption. 

Let us inquire where the apostle meant He 
had "come/' "Having come" — where? Into 
this world, of course, from which where He en- 
tered into heaven. From this Scripture we have 
the direct assertion that He both came and went 
a High Priest. What further testimony do we 
need to prove the falsity of the position taken 
by our critic? 

Second, Heb. viii, 3, R. V., says: "Every 
high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and 
sacrifices ; wherefore it is necessary that this high 
priest also have somewhat to offer." 

The objector will not deny that this Scrip- 
ture refers to Christ. It is also beyond question 
that the "somewhat" which Christ offered was 
His own body. (See chap. x. Also ix, 26, 
where it is positively declared that He sacrificed 
"Himself," and that the offering was "the body 



The Bible Way. 99 

of Jesus Christ/') That the time when He made 
that sacrifice and offered that "somewhat'' was 
when He died on Calvary is undisputed, and this 
Scripture positively and unequivocally asserts 
that as High Priest Jesus Christ made this offer- 
ing. Hence the Scriptures, as we have seen a 
second time, assert that Jesus Christ was a High 
Priest while here on earth and before His death. 

Third, the psalmist, speaking of Christ, Psa. 
ex, 4, says (not that He was to become a Priest 
after His death, but) "Thou art a Priest forever 
after the order of Melchizedek," which state- 
ment is repeatedly quoted and indorsed in the 
New Testament Scriptures. 

Fourth, Heb. ii, 17, says: "It behooved Him 
in all things to be made like unto His brethren 
that He might be a merciful and faithful High 
Priest in things pertaining to God to make propi- 
tiation for the sins of the people." Now, when 
did he make that propitiation for the sins of the 
people? Unquestionably on Calvary. And this 
Scripture declares that He was Priest in order 
to do that thing ; but how could that be if he was 
not a Priest at all until after His death — until 
after that propitiation had been made? 

It will scarcely be deemed necessary to quote 
further. These passages establish the fact that 
long- before His death it was said of Christ: 

LOFC. 



ioo Th£ Bibi^ Way. 

"Thou art a Priest forever;" that He came a 
High Priest; that, as High Priest, He offered 
the sacrifice of Himself, and as a faithful and 
merciful High Priest made, by His death, a "pro- 
pitiation for the sins of the people." 

Now as to the exact time when Christ visibly 
took upon Him the office, and publicly assumed 
to Himself the priestly functions, we believe the 
Scriptures point most conclusively to the time of 
His consecration at the River Jordan. 

The law required that the Jewish priest be 
thirty years of age before he undertook the duties 
of his office or entered upon his public ministry. 
Consequently, Jesus waited until he arrived at 
the age of thirty before entering upon His office 
as Minister or Priest. 

The law required that the Jewish priest, be- 
fore entering upon his office, submit to a washing, 
purification, or baptism with water (see Lev. viii) 
out of the laver. (Dr. J. Ditzler proves with ab- 
solute certainty that these washings or baptisms 
were by affusion — sprinkling or pouring.) This 
ablution was followed by the putting on of the 
priestly robes, and upon the sacred person thus 
washed and clothed the oil of anointing was 
poured forth to "sanctify him." These cere- 
monies were all typical, which types Christ came 
to fulfill. The type of anointing with oil was 



Th£ Bibi^s Way. ioi 

fulfilled in Christ's anointing with the Holy 
Ghost after His baptism by John. (Observe the 
element in the typical and anti-typical anointing 
was not the same, which will answer the objec- 
tion numbered 3 above, that the water sprinkled 
on the Jewish priest was not the same as that 
used upon Jesus in His baptism, the one being 
mixed, the other pure, unmixed.) Christ says of 
His anointing, John xvii, 19: "For their sakes 
I sanctify Myself" and John says (John vi, 27), 
"For Him hath God the Father sealed/' The 
investiture of the Jewish priest was fulfilled in 
Christ's investiture from heaven when there came 
such an excellent voice : "This is My beloved 
Son," and the typical washing of the Jewish 
priest was fulfilled in Christ's baptism by John. 
It was not necessary that the element or sub- 
stance be the same in either the washing, inves- 
titure, or anointing, as the one was merely typical 
and the other its fulfillment or antitype. 

In further proof that Christ's baptism was 
His outward, visible setting apart or consecra- 
tion to His priestly office and work, we have the 
positive declaration of Christ Himself. No one 
can deny that Jesus, in the act of purging the 
Jewish temple, assumed and exercised the office 
of High Priest, and when the chief priests and 
elders demanded of Him by what authority He 



102 Ths Bibijs Way. 

did this — that is, by what authority He assumed 
the prerogatives of the priest — He appealed at 
once to His baptism by John: "I also will ask 
you one question . . . the baptism of John, 
whence was it, from heaven or of men?" Had 
they dared to answer Wi irom heaven,*' we can 
easily see what His reply would have been. 
Here, then, is the most positive proof that Christ 
did claim to be a Priest, that He actually per- 
formed one of the chief duties of the Priest, and 
that when He was asked His authority He ap- 
pealed to His consecration to his priestly office 
by John the Baptist, which disposes of objec- 
tion 4, that Jesus never claimed to be High 
Priest. The quotations already made wiil also 
settle whether or not any inspired man has ever 
claimed He was. 

Concerning objections Nos. I and 2, we ad- 
mit that the old Jewish law limited the priest- 
hood to the tribe of Levi, but when Jesus, who 
was not of the tribe of Levi, came and visibly 
took upon Him the priestly office at His baptism 
and heavenly anointing, the law limiting the 
priesthood to the sons of Levi underwent a neces- 
sary change as shown in Heb. vii, 12. Concern- 
ing objection 6: How does the objector know 
there could not be two priests at the same time? 
Why could not the Aaronic and Melchizedaic 
priesthoods be parallel in time? 



Th£ Bibls Way. 103 

It is objected last that Christ's priesthood 
should not change by reason of death (Heb. vii, 
23, 24), and therefore Christ could not have be- 
come Priest until after His death. We allow the 
premises, but deny the conclusion. The Levitical 
priests were many because they were not suffered 
to continue (in the priestly office) by reason of 
death. Physical death brought their term of 
office to a close, and hindered them from con- 
tinuing in the perpetual exercise of their office. 
But not so with Christ. He was appointed a 
Priest "forever," and not to a Priesthood that 
was to pass to another. Physical death could not 
interfere with His office who had the power to 
lay down his life and take it again at will, it 
being an unchangeable priesthood. 

Concerning the old law that the newly con- 
secrated priest should "not go out of the door 
of the tabernacle in seven days," we must remem- 
ber that Christ's consecration was antitypical, 
and not typical. He was not in a tabernacle 
made with hands, nor did He immediately go 
into any such tabernacle, and hence, of course, 
was not by any law required not "to go out of the 
door of the tabernacle of the congregation in 
seven days." But He did as the priests did under 
the old law; viz., exclude Himself from society, 
and remained closeted with God (in the wilder- 



lc>4 The Bible Way. 

ness) for meditation and prayer for many days. 
viii, 38. 

The point we make is, that as the sanctifying 
element with which the Jewish priest under the 
law was baptized and set apart to his office was 
sprinkled upon him, so the strong probabilities 
are that the sanctifying element with which 
Christ was visibly inducted into His priestly 
office by John at His baptism was likewise 
sprinkled upon Him. We think the argument 
exceedingly clear. But as we stated, nothing 
essential depends upon its correctness, since the 
object is not to establish sprinkling as the pre- 
scribed mode, but to show that God has nowhere 
positively specified how the water of baptism 
shall be applied, and hence men have no right to 
bind such unscriptural prescription upon each 
other. The; Author.] 

Rkv. S. — But does it not say that He "came 
up out of the water?" 

Dr. — Suppose it did. Will you, from that, 
positively assume that he was immersed? That 
is the only evidence you have, and it is no evi- 
dence at all, for multitudes of people have gone 
down into the water, been there baptized by 
affusion, and come up out of the water, without 
having been immersed at all; and in a warm 



The Bibi<£ Way. 105 

climate such as theirs, and dressed as they were, 
it would be quite natural that Jesus would step 
down into the water. But from Matt, iii, 16, we 
could not be at all certain that he was in the 
water even ankle deep ; for the word "apo" does 
not mean "out of." It is translated "from" 374 
times in the New Testament, and the Revised 
Version, which represents the scholarship of the 
world, translates it "from the water," and never 
translates apo by out of. Alex. Carson (Baptist) 
says, p. 126, "I admit the proper translation of 
apo is from and not out of!' 

In Mark i, 10, the preposition in the 
Greek text of the Revision is "ek" which also 
means "from," as well as "out of," and is so 
translated 186 times in the New Testament. All 
ancient pictorial representations of this baptism, 
some of them reaching back almost, if not quite, 
to Apostolic times, favor affusion as the mode — 
none immersion. But the main point here is that, 
without a shadow of proof, you assume that 
Christ was immersed, and offer this human 
assumption as proof that Christ commanded us 
to be immersed, or that in this passage he posi- 
tively specifies the manner in which the water 
must be applied. 

What has been said on this passage will apply 
also to your other similar case of the baptism 



io6 The) Bibi,£ Way, 

of the Ethiopian eunuch. The only proof you 
have of an immersion in this case is that they 
went down "into" the water, and came up "out 
of" the water. We may grant all you ask, and 
yet defy you to prove it a case of immersion, 
much less to prove from it that God commands 
immersion, and makes it obligatory. Even sup- 
pose we should grant you that it was a clear case 
of immersion (which we do not grant for a 
moment, the evidence being all the other way), 
but even then we could defy you to prove that 
God commands immersion, and makes that obli- 
gatory. The record of this baptism is in Acts 
viii, 38. Now, let us suppose that Philip wanted 
to baptize that eunuch by sprinkling, what would 
he have done except just what the record says 
he did do? One immersionist debater, when 
hard pressed for an answer to this question, said, 
"He might have brought some up in his shoe," 
but his opponent convulsed the audience with 
laughter by replying, "They did not wear shoes 
in those days; they wore sandals." But the 
question is not what could he have done, but 
what would he naturally have done under the 
circumstances ? 

Re;v. S. — The eunuch doubtless had drinking 
vessels along with him in his journey, and Prof. 
Dungan suggests he might have sent one of the 



Ths Bjbi^ Way. 107 

servants down to the water to fetch some for the 
baptism if it was to be by affusion. 

Dr. — In this you and Dungan assume two 
things without proof ; viz., the presence of serv- 
ants and vessels. But suppose we allow both. 
The eunuch was a Gentile, an Ethiopian; Philip 
was a Jew. Christianity had not yet gone to the 
Gentiles. If, therefore, a vessel had been sup- 
plied by the eunuch, it would have been unclean. 
(See Lev. xi, 30-36.) The thing recorded is the 
only natural thing under the circumstances. But 
what makes it still more probable that this was a 
case of sprinkling, and not immersion, is that in 
the Scripture w r here the eunuch was reading 
when Philip met him (Isa. lii, 15, and what fol- 
lows), we find these words: "So shall he 
sprinkle many nations." (The Bible was not 
then divided into chapters and verses as now.) 
Nothing can be more natural than that this 
would lead Philip to explain the subject of bap- 
tism, as the eunuch asked for baptism as soon as 
they came to some water. 

Rev. S. — But we contend that Isa. lii, 15, 
should be translated "startle" and not "sprinkle." 

Dr. — But in the other twenty-three places 
where the same word (nazah) occurs in the Old 
Testament, it is always rendered sprinkle; and 
in every other instance "startle" would make 



108 The: Bibus Way. 

absolute nonsense, as for example, "startle it 
upon Aaron and upon his garments." (Ex. xix, 
21 ). Besides, every translation on earth, Syriac, 
Coptic, Latin, Sahidic, Bashmuric, Gothic, Arab- 
ian, Armenian, Persic, Amharic, Esthonic, Rus- 
sian, Polish, Bohemian, Lithuanic, Livonian, 
Icelandic, German, Danish, Swedish, Spanish, 
Italian, Portuguese, Welsh, Irish, Gaelic, Japan- 
ese, Chinese, Hawaiian, English, both Authorized 
and Revised, and all the rest, render it sprinkle, 
with one lone exception of the Septuagint, which, 
as scholars say, is a mere blunder by mistaking 
one Greek sound or letter for another, almost 
exactly like it, rhammasontai becoming changed 
to thaumasontai, the first meaning "sprinkle," 
the last "startle." If all these versions are mis- 
taken about this word, then there can be no cer- 
tainty about the correctness of any word. The 
Septuagint had a mere mistake of a single letter. 
Now, if this was the version used by the eunuch 
—and Philip was an inspired man, knowing the 
Hebrew Scriptures — it would have been very 
easy for him to correct the blunder in the version 
the eunuch was reading from. But that he read 
from the Septuagint version is by no means cer- 
tain, as the portion of prophecy quoted in verses 
32 and 33 does not exactly agree with the 
Septuagint reading. 



Thk Bible Way. 109 

R^v. S. — But could not Isa. lii, 15, be a 
prophecy of the sprinkling of Christ's blood 
referred to in 1 Peter, i, 2 and Heb. x, 22? 

Dr. — Suppose it was, how would that hinder 
it from also being a prophecy of Matt, xxviii, 
19, and of the sprinkling of the water of bap- 
tism? Since the prophecy foretells something 
to be done to the "nations/' and Matt, xxviii, 19, 
commands something to be done to the "nations," 
which we claim is most properly done in the way 
that prophecy suggests, we think it is most fit- 
ingly fulfilled by the thing commanded in Matt, 
xxviii, 19. If Isa. lii, 15, had only read immerse 
instead of "sprinkle," how it would have been 
heralded to the end of the earth as a prophecy 
of Christian baptism as commanded in Matt, 
xxviii, 19! And it would have been in their 
hands a stronger argument than immersionists 
possess to-day. But when the word is "sprinkle," 
is it not just as conclusive the other way? If 
not, why? 

R^v. S. — But does not the Bible say, John 
was baptizing in ^Enon near to Salem, because 
there was much water there? What did he 
want of much water if it was not to immerse? 

Dr. — You are getting away from the ques- 
tion, Mr. Slashaway. The young man's request 
was for you to find a single passage where God 



no The: Bible Way. 

positively commands us to be immersed, as he 
proposes to go the Bible way. Now you are 
trying to show that John, in his baptism, prac- 
ticed immersion. That might be granted you 
without affecting the case in the slightest. Sup- 
pose you show many positive cases of immersion 
in the New Testament (and you can not to save 
your life show one), that would not be so much 
as one step toward proving that God commands 
immersion, and makes that obligatory. 

Again, John's baptism was not Christian 
baptism (see Acts xix, 1-5), and therefore, even 
if John did immerse, it could be no rule to us 
as to how we must be baptized. But what is 
still worse for you is that this is another of your 
"human inferences" which you so severely con- 
demn in others. Here is the argument: John 
baptized in a certain place because there was 
much water there, therefore we "suppose," we 
"infer," that he immersed. Hence God pre- 
scribes immersion and makes this obligatory. 
We challenge your inference, and say there is no 
proof in the passage that John immersed, and 
even if he did it would prove no prescription to 
us. 

The Greek phrase "hudata polla," translated 
in our version "much water," occurs fifteen 
times in the Scriptures, and is but once rendered 



Th# Bible) Way. hi 

"much water;" elsewhere we find it "many 
waters." (See Rev. i, 15, etc.) The Revised 
Version renders it "many waters" in the margin. 
It means "many springs." Dr. Robinson says: 
"It is six miles from Jerusalem, and many 
springs burst out from the rocky crevices at 
various intervals for some miles." If John 
wanted much water for the purpose of immers- 
ing, which the passage does not say, why did 
he leave Jordan, a place of more water, for a 
place of much or many waters ? He was preach- 
ing and baptizing in ^Enon because there were 
many springs or waters there, but there were 
other purposes for which water would be needed 
besides baptizing, which immersioniats seem to 
overlook entirely. 

Rev. S. — Well, friends, I think we may as 
well be going. There seems to be little hope 
of convincing this Methodist brother. He is 
wedded to his false system and creed, and loves 
it as Saul loved Judaism. 

The Doctor, realizing how keenly the three 
immersionist boasters felt their defeat and their 
chagrin in not being able to make a better im- 
pression on such an influential young man as 
Charley, made no reply. 



H2 The: Bibi,e Way. 

C. — You are not going without giving me 
the passage where God positively commands me 
to be immersed. 

Dr. — Charley, don't tantalize them. I know 
you are in earnest, and that you felt anxious to 
have them show you the passage, if it could be 
found, but neither of these gentlemen, nor any 
other living man, can show you such a passage, 
for it is not in the Book. If it had been there 
Mr. Slashaway would have shown it to you long 
ago. 

At this juncture the two evangelists and Rev. 
Narroway took up their books and said, "Good 
night!" 

After some pointed conversation, in which 
the Doctor imparted to Charley a number of 
helpful hints and important spiritual advice, 
cautioning him against the danger of placing an 
undue and unscriptural importance on mere ex- 
ternals, even though commanded of God for a 
wise purpose, and inviting Charley, with his 
young friend, to meet at the parsonage the fol- 
lowing afternoon for some further investigation 
in the design and subject of baptism, and the 
work of the Holy Spirit, etc., the Doctor, com- 
mending the young disciple to the protection and 
care of the All-wise Father, bade him good- 
night. 



The; Bible Way. 113 

Dr. Fairplay being unexpectedly called from 
home on the afternoon agreed upon for the 
further study of the subject, the promised investi- 
gation had to be postponed. 

Many of Charley's young friends had, in his 
v presence, spared no pains in heaping ridicule 
upon the practice of infant baptism, calling it 
"baby sprinkling," a "relic of popery," and ask- 
ing, "What good can it do to sprinkle a few 
drops of water on the head of an unconscious 
babe?" 

Under these circumstances it would be but 
natural for his own prejudices to be consider- 
ably aroused against it ; but he was learning now, 
as never before in such matters, to think for 
himself, and to ask, "What has God said?" 
rather than "What have men said?" He had 
just finished reading from the Revised Version 
of the Scriptures the Great Commission: "All 
authority is given unto Me in heaven and on 
earth. Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of 
all nations, baptizing them into the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ; 
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever 
I have commanded you ; and, lo ! I am with you 
alway, even unto the end of the world." He 
was struck with the fact that this law concerning 
baptism makes no restriction either as to age or 
8 



ii4 The Bibi,d Way. 

sex, and that if such restriction is in the Scrip- 
tures it must be found either expressed or im- 
plied somewhere outside of the law itself. 

While meditating upon this subject the morn- 
ing mail came in, and with it a little sheet headed, 
"Baptism according to avoirdupois/' of which 
the following question constituted the substance : 
"Why should people condemn us for capturing 
a two-hundred-pound man and baptizing him by- 
force, and bless another for capturing a ten- 
pound man, with the help of his mother, and 
baptizing him ? If wrong to baptize two hundred 
pounds that has no faith, why not to baptize ten 
or fifteen pounds that has no faith?" 

Such mighty logic almost led Charley to feel 
like congratulating the Almighty that such giants 
had not lived in the days of circumcision, lest His 
designs concerning infants might have been in 
like danger with infant baptism to-day. He was 
wondering whether it was possible for any 
human being to be persuaded that because a thing 
ought not to be done for a full-grown man with- 
out his own consent and faith, it should, there- 
fore, not be done for an infant without his. 
"Why/' said he, "if that were true, a child should 
not (without full faith in its importance, and 
the full consent of his own will) ever be even 
taught, or washed, or put to bed," And he 



Th£ Bibi,£ Way. 115 

disgustedly threw down the paper, exclaiming, 
"A course of reasoning which leads to such 
absurd conclusions is not worthy of consider- 
ation." 

Involuntarily Charley found himself inquir- 
ing : "Is the unsinning child a true disciple of 
Jesus Christ? Is he saved through his most 
precious blood? If so, in the name of reason, 
why should he not receive the outward sign of 
discipleship, and be made visibly what he is in 
reality — a disciple of Christ — and then be taught 
to 'observe all things' which Christ commanded, 
according to the Great Commission? Are 
repentance and faith anywhere in the Bible 
demanded as a prerequisite condition to baptism 
where they are not also demanded as a pre- 
requisite condition to salvation ?" .He was suf- 
ficiently familiar with the Scriptures to know 
that they were not, hence he was compelled to 
reason: For a Church to impose faith and 
repentance as a prerequisite condition to baptism 
where the Bible does not require them as a pre- 
requisite to salvation, is to go beyond the Bible, 
and to bring the perpetrators under the con- 
demnation of Rev. xxii, 19-20. 

But as a special sermon on Infant Baptism 
had been announced by Mr. Slashaway for that 
evening, Charley concluded to go and hear what 



n6 Th£ Bibl*; Way. 

was said. As he passed in, a portly woman at 
the door placed in his hand a little dodger con- 
taining, among other questions, the following: 
"Did you know that infant baptism is not even 
mentioned in the Bible? Why should people 
practice in the name of religion things that are 
not even mentioned in the Bible?" 

"Well, then," thought he, "if these people 
can not find immersion mentioned in the Bible, 
why should they, on their principles, practice it 
in the name of religion, and also teach it as a 
necessary prerequisite to salvation?" 

His reverie was interrupted by Mr. Slash- 
away, who said, as he rose, "Has any one found 
the Scripture which mentions infant baptism, as 
I requested?" For a moment there was no 
response, when a lean, lank, awkward-looking 
fellow, on the opposite side from where Charley 
sat, rose and said, "I can tell you, sir." "Good !" 
said the preacher ; "glad to hear from you ! 
Step right out and come to the front." The 
preacher evidently expected some rich fun at the 
expense of the old man, who, by this time, had 
marched to the front. "Take the platform !" 
said the preacher. "Now, sir, where is the pass- 
age?" 

"I believe you said," began the stranger, 
"that the Bible very plainly prescribes immer- 



The; Bibue; Way. 117 

sion?" "Yes, sir, yes!" replied the parson; "but 
what has that to do with it?" "Please turn to 
the passage," said he, "which prescribes immer- 
sion so that a plain man like myself can see and 
read it without the necessity of any man-made 
explanations, and I promise to show you, in the 
next verse, where it plainly prescribes infant 
baptism." Then turning to the audience he said, 
"Ladies and gentlemen, is that fair?" Voices 
from the audience responded, "Yes !" 

All eyes now centered on the preacher. There 
was a sound like suppressed laughter among the 
boys. The preacher's face colored ; he nervously 
turned a few leaves of his Bible, made an effort 
or two to clear his throat, and then turning to 
his singer said, "Sing something appropriate." 
To which Mr. Nightingale responded by starting 
up "Pull for the shore, brother." Which advice 
the brother instantly followed. 

The sermon was unusually short that evening, 
but at its close the previously instructed com- 
mittee was at the door for "business." As a 
strange lady approached she was cordially 
greeted. On discovering that she was a Method- 
ist, the "worker" inquired how she enjoyed the 
sermon. It was impossible to avoid an answer, 
so the lady replied that she was not very favor- 
ably impressed. "Oh!" continued the "worker," 



n8 The) Bibi,£ Way. 

"you Methodists believe in sprinkling babies." 
"Yes," she replied, quietly, "sometimes." 

Worker — What do you have them sprinkled 
for? 

Lady — That depends. If we happen to be 
out in a shower it is usually because we fail to 
get the umbrella up in time. 

W. — Oh ! I mean what makes you have them 
sprinkled for baptism? 

L. — Because we believe that to be the Bible 
way. I notice wherever the Bible specifies the 
mode in baptism it is affusion. 

W. — Well, what I want now, is to know why 
infants should be baptized at all. 

L. — Why, then, did you not ask me that at 
first, and I should have told you. They should 
be baptized for the same reason that adults 
should. 

By this time a group of listeners had been 
attracted, and Mr. Slashaway, fearing his com- 
mittee-woman might be getting into difficulty, 
hurriedly pressed his way back just in time to 
catch the last question and answer. It required 
only a glance at the lady's intelligent face, her 
marked composure, and perfect self command, 
to convince him that she was not the one for his 
"worker" to have engaged, but, hoping to turn 
the tide, he concluded to take a hand. 



Ths Bibi,£ Way. 119 

Rtv. S.— Why, lady ! Adults should be bap- 
tized because God commands it. 

Lady — Does he, sir ? Where ? 

Rev. S. — Why! in the Commission, Matt, 
xxviii, 19-20 ; and this is the only law of baptism 
we have. We Christians do not go to the Old 
Testament for our authority to baptize anybody. 

L. — I am not aware that you Christians differ 
from any other Christians in that respect. The 
only authority we claim for infant baptism is 
found in the New Testament; and our chief 
authority is the very passage you have cited, 
Matt, xxviii, 19-20. 

Rkv. S. — Where does that Commission give 
you that authority for infant baptism? Does it 
mention infants? 

L. — Quite as much as it does adults. Does 
it mention them? 

Rev. S. — We people reject all human infer- 
ences in matters of this kind, and insist upon a 
"Thus saith the Lord" for all positive institu- 
tions, such as baptism. 

L. — On the contrary, there is not a person in 
your Church who has any higher authority to be 
baptized than a human inference, and you can not 
show me any authority why you, or any person 
to-day, should be baptized which does not rest 



120 The Bibus Way. 

upon a human inference; if so, please let us 
hear it. 

R#v. S. — Does not the Commission distinctly 
command certain ones to go and baptize ? 

L. — Yes, sir. But does that command you 
or anybody to be baptized? 

Rev. S. — How could we baptize unless there 
were certain ones to be baptized ? 

L. — I have not said that you could, but this 
is a human inference. God commanded certain 
ones to baptize, from which you infer that it is 
God's intention that certain ones should be bap- 
tized. Your inference is legitimate, and as per- 
fectly satisfactory as a direct "Thus saith the 
Lord," and yet it is nothing more nor less than 
an "inference" and I challenge you to show me 
any authority why you or anybody now should 
be baptized which does not rest on a human 
inference. The Commission is, as you have very 
properly said, the only law God has ever given 
concerning baptism. He has nowhere com- 
manded any of us to be baptized; the only way 
we learn that any one is to be baptized is by 
inference, but the inference is so clear and un- 
mistakable that it has all the force of law\ 

Observe, this Commission, or law, does not 
specify who, or what class of persons, are to be 
baptized ; that we must learn from other sources. 



The) Bibu) Way. 121 

The Commission itself does not specify adults, 
either male or female, any more than it does 
infants. I want you, and these people, clearly 
to understand that we have no other law of bap- 
tism, and we ask no other, than that contained in 
the Great Commission. We do not, as you 
accuse us, go to the Old Testament for our law, 
but we insist that the law shall be intepreted in 
the light of all the facts which God Himself has 
furnished us ; we ask no more, and we shall be 
satisfied with nothing less. I am perfectly willing 
to abide by the words of the law; but if you 
insist upon going one step outside of the law for 
light, then I shall insist upon having all the light 
which God has thrown upon this subject 
throughout the whole range of sacred Scripture, 
and if you are not afraid of the light w T hich the 
whole Bible gives, you will not seek to exclude 
any part of it. While the New Testament gives 
us the only law and authority we have or need 
for baptizing anybody, the Old and New Testa- 
ments both were given to furnish us all the data 
and all the facts necessary to ascertain the exact 
meaning and intent of the law of baptism. 

The position of the Church to which I be- 
long as to who are proper subjects for baptism 
is this : The New Testament, understood accord- 
ing to all just and recognized rules of interpre- 



122 The: Bibi^ Way. 

tation (while it nowhere, in so many words, speci- 
fies either adults or infants, male or female, as 
the proper subjects of baptism) does, neverthe- 
less, clearly teach that all who are in the kingdom 
of God, without regard to age or sex, and zvho 
are, of course, so situated that they can be taught, 
either before, at the time, or after their baptism, 
the nature and design of the ordinance, are the 
proper subjects for Christian baptism. And we 
believe this is the only true and Scriptural posi- 
tion concerning the proper subjects for this Bible 
ordinance. 

Rev. S. — Have you given me an express com- 
mand for baptizing infants ? 

L. — I have. As express a command as you 
have or can give me for baptizing adults; viz., 
the Commission, Matt, xxviii, 19-20. 

Rkv. S. — But is it not certain that that com- 
mands adult baptism ? 

L. — No more certain than that it commands 
infant baptism. 

R£v. S. — Does not the Commission as given 
by Mark, xvi, 15-16, say, "He that believeth and 
is baptized shall be saved ?" 

L. — It does not. That is a declaration added 
to the Commission. 

Rev. S. — But does not that declaration make 
it certain that adults are to be baptized? 

L,. — I have not questioned that adults are to 



The: Bibi^ Way. 123 

be baptized. But you have gone outside the 
words of the Commission to prove that the law 
includes adults. I can, by doing the same thing, 
prove that it includes infants. 

Rev. S. — But does not the declaration, "He 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," 
positively exclude infants, since they can not 
believe ? 

L. — Certainly not. Baptism has no relation 
to faith, it relates to salvation, to inward purity. 
The only reason faith is necessary before bap- 
tism in the case of adults, is because there can 
be for them no salvation without it; but this is 
not true of infants. They have salvation without 
faith, and therefore faith, not being a prerequis- 
ite condition of their salvation, can not possibly 
be a prerequisite condition of their baptism. Nor 
can you show me a passage anywhere in the New 
Testament which demands faith as a prerequisite 
to baptism, where it is not also enjoined as a 
prerequisite to salvation. Adults are not saved 
without faith, and therefore of course they are 
not baptized without faith; infants are saved 
without faith, and therefore they are baptized 
without faith. 

Rev. S. — We have always contended that the 
Bible makes faith a necessary prerequisite to 
baptism. 



124 The: Bible Way. 

L. — Yes, and thus you have excluded infants 
from baptism. And yet you can not produce a 
single passage which makes faith a prerequisite 
to baptism except in the case of those in whom 
faith is required in order to salvation. And you 
yourselves admit that faith is not required in 
order to the salvation of the infant. 

The people, seeing the preacher's embarrass- 
ment, crowded in a little closer that they might 
not miss any of the argument. Charley was be- 
coming intensely interested, and wondered what 
the outcome would be. 

Rev. S. — Well, even if Mark xvi, 16, does 
not exclude infants from baptism, you have not 
proved that the law of baptism (Matt, xxviii, 
19-20) includes infants, and this is what you 
said you could prove. 

L. — And I will; but first a word more con- 
cerning Mark xvi, 16. The moment you can 
show it excludes infants from baptism, you will 
also prove that it excludes them from heaven. 
The passage does not say, as you infer, He that 
believeth not is not to be baptised, but it does say 
"He that believeth not shall be damned." If, 
therefore, your reasoning is legitimate, the con- 
clusion would be, infants believe not, therefore 



Ths Bibi,s Way. 125 

infants will be damned. But such a doctrine is 
too monstrous to be accepted for a moment, and 
proves your reasoning to be utterly baseless. 

But now for the proof that the words of the 
law, Matt, xxviii, 19-20 must include infants as 
well as adults. 

It will not be denied that it is essential in the 
interpretation of any law to ascertain whether 
it is entirely independent of any previously ex- 
isting law, or is simply an alteration of a law 
already existing, and which, in this changed or 
amended form, is to be perpetuated. 

Now, while the opponents of infant baptism 
claim that the law of baptism has no relation to 
the law of circumcision previously existing, we 
contend that the two are so related that the law 
of baptism is simply an altered form of the more 
ancient law of circumcision, that, while in its 
changed form it has a broader application (since 
it belongs to a broader and freer dispensation), 
yet the law in its changed form must not be so 
interpreted as to effect changes not indicated 
by the Lawgiver Himself. 

To illustrate the case, we will suppose an an- 
cient king to have a flock of sheep among which 
are some of special stock. The owner concludes 
to fence these off from the rest of the flock. 
Now, he sends out his servants to mark all the 



126 Th£ Bibi/s Way. 

males among his special stock by clipping off the 
end of the right ear. In his command he ex- 
pressly specifies all the males, the old and the 
young, the sheep and the lambs; and instructs 
them that when sheep and lambs are purchased, 
or when lambs are born into the flock they are all 
to receive the mark. By and by the king decides 
to break down the fences, and no longer make 
any distinction between male and female. In- 
stead of the bloody mark made by the knife, he 
concludes henceforth to mark by a spot of red 
paint on the top of the head. Now he sends out 
his servants with instructions: 

First, there is to be no longer any separation, 
all fences of separation are to be broken down. 
There is henceforth to be neither this nor that 
particular stock. No distinctions are to be made 
between male and female, all alike are to receive 
the mark. 

Will you tell me by what authority those serv- 
ants would henceforth pass over the lambs, and 
mark only the grown-up sheep ? 

How can a simple change in the character of 
the mark and a command that henceforth there 
is to be neither male nor female — no distinctions 
of stock — but all are to be treated alike, be as- 
signed as a reason for hereafter omitting to mark 
the lambs? 



The Bible; Way. 127 

But, says the objector, the lambs were not 
specifically mentioned in the law to use paint. 
We reply what difference does that make? 
Neither were the grown-up sheep specifically 
mentioned. When the original law was made 
the servants were specifically commanded to 
mark old and young, sheep and lambs ; and when 
it was extended to all the flock, females as well 
as males, and the character of the mark changed, 
how could that possibly be construed as a direc- 
tion henceforth to omit marking the lambs ? 

The case before us (as we shall presently 
see) is, in all essential particulars, precisely 
parallel. The first mark was circumcision. The 
Jews were the separated people, and the mark 
of circumcision was for the males only. But 
when "the fullness of the time was come" the 
fences — "middle walls of partition" — were 
broken down ; henceforth there was to be "neither 
Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither 
male nor female." The character of the mark 
was to be changed by Divine authority to bap- 
tism, and no such limitation was ever made, 
either when the mark was changed or at any 
other time, as would exclude infants from the 
mark, whatever it might be, or however often 
changed. 

Now, I will prove that baptism and circum- 



128 The; Bibus Way. 

cision have such relation to each other, and that 
the law of baptism is simply an alteration in the 
previously existing and well-known law of cir- 
cumcision. 

You will hardly deny, I think, that if I can 
show, ist. That both laws emanated from the 
same source, the same King, or Lord, being 
author of them both ; 2d. That the two laws were 
given to apply to and govern the same body — 
the Church; and 3d. That the Scriptures, the 
only guide we have in the matter, make it plain 
that baptism and circumcision are thus related to 
each other, the one sustaining the same relation 
to the Church under the new dispensation as the 
other did under the old, — I will have established 
my case that the law of baptism is simply an al- 
teration in the previously existing law of cir- 
cumcision, and in the absence of any law exclud- 
ing infants from baptism, Matt, xxviii, 19-20, 
must be so interpreted as to include infants as 
well as adults? 

REX S. — It certainly can not be denied that 
if you establish those three propositions the law 
of baptism (Matt, xxviii, 19-20) includes in- 
fants, and infant baptism is of Bible authority. 

L. — And this I shall now proceed to do: 

ist. That the law of circumcision and the 
law of baptism were both given by the same 



Thd Bibi^ Way. 129 

Lord, will be denied only by those who deny that 
Jesus Christ is One with the Father. 

Rev. S. — You need not tarry on that propo- 
sition. Neither Baptists nor Disciples have any 
disposition to deny that the same God is author 
of both laws in question. 

L. — Very well, I proceed at once, then, to the 
second proposition. Many anti-pedobaptists 
stoutly maintain that the two laws can not have 
the relation claimed for them because they were 
not given to govern the same body at all; they 
claim that the Body, or Church, to whom the 
law of baptism was given had no existence prior 
to the commencement of the Gospel or Christian 
dispensation, and that therefore the law could 
not have been given to the Christian Church 
when it was not yet in existence. Other anti- 
pedobaptists, among whom is Alexander Camp- 
bell, believing the evidence too strong to deny 
the existence of a Church prior to this time, take 
the position that the ancient, or as they call it 
the Jewish Church and the modern or Christian 
Church are two entirely different bodies, having 
no necessary relation to each other. 

The question, then, is this : Had God a 
Church on earth prior to the New Testament 
times ; and, if so, was it the same Church as has 
existed since? 



130 Th£ Bibi,£ Way. 

Before answering, it will be well clearly to 
understand what we mean by the question, since 
the word Church is used in several different 
senses. 

1st. The word Church in its widest sense 
applies to the whole body of the saved (militant 
on earth, triumphant in heaven). 

2d. Sometimes it is used to designate a sin- 
gle society or a denomination, or body of pro- 
fessing Christians holding essentially the same 
tenets. 

3d. It is sometimes used to denote the house 
or building in which a religious body meets, but 

4th. It is probably most commonly used of 
the whole body of those who are separated from 
the world for the service and worship of God, 
and observe what they believe to be divinely ap- 
pointed rites and ordinances. 

Our question is, had God such a Church on 
earth prior to the New Testament times ; and, if 
so, is it the same Church as has existed since ? 

We contend that, so far as the records show, 
for more than twenty centuries after the crea- 
tion of the world God's people were in no true 
sense separated from the rest of the world for 
the service and worship of God, having divinely 
appointed ordinances. So far as the Scriptures 
teach, there was no distinguishing badge by 



Thp) Bibls Way. 131 

which they were known to be separated from 
the world, and recognized as God's peculiar peo- 
ple. We do not mean, of course, that God had 
no people during all this time, but that they were 
not a people separated from the rest of the world, 
as God's people afterward became when he or- 
ganized His Church, and appointed for them a 
distinguishing mark. 

But soon after the flood, God did call Abram 
cut for the purpose of bringing him and his 
family into a more intimate relation with Him- 
self, separating him from his kindred, and plac- 
ing upon the person of Abram (whose name was 
now changed to Abraham) and upon each of his 
male descendants, an outward, visible token or 
mark which was to be to him and his descend- 
ants a sign and a seal of the covenant God then 
made with him and his posterity; this was the 
organization and origin of the visible Church of 
God on earth. The charter of that Church was 
the covenant made with Abraham and his de- 
scendants. As this covenant, or charter, upon 
which the Church was founded, was the very 
essence of the visible Church organization, the 
two are inseparable. Without the covenant there 
could be no Church. The covenant, from its very 
nature, could not exist without the Church, nor 
the Church without the covenant. 



132 The Bible Way. 

The Holy Spirit, in Acts vii, 38, makes ref- 
erence to the Church as existing long before New 
Testament times as follows : "This is he that was 
in the Church in the wilderness." Also in Heb. 
ii, 12 : "He is not ashamed to call them brethren, 
saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren ; 
in the midst of the Church will I sing praise unto 
Thee." 

This latter is a quotation from Psa. xxii, 22. 
There it is translated congregation, but in the 
Greek it is the same word as is everywhere trans- 
lated church (ecclesia). 

Rev. S. — I shall not deny that there was a 
Church before the New Testament times, but I 
hold that it was not the same Church that has 
existed since. 

L. — Then one or the other of two things is 
certain : Either that Church must have been dis- 
organized, its charter (the covenant) surren- 
dered, and a new Church organized in its place, 
or else God has two Churches in the world to- 
day. 

Rev. S. — God has not two Churches. The 
Old Testament or Jewish Church no longer ex- 
ists. 

L. — I admit God has not, and never had, two 
Churches ; the Church of God is one, and ever 
has, since first it came into being, been but one. 



The Bibi^ Way. 133 

But I deny your assertion that the Church of 
the Old Testament times no longer exists, and 
now call upon you to prove it. The Church 
which you please to call the Christian Church 
(in distinction from the Jewish) is not another 
Church. I readily grant you that certain altera- 
tions took place in the outward state and condi- 
tion of the Church after the coming of the 
Messiah, yet there is no evidence to show that 
these changes were such as to constitute a new 
Church. The Church's original charter — upon 
which it was founded — was never withdrawn or 
surrendered, but being in existence yet, the 
Church which was born with it has not passed 
away and never will so long as the covenant 
stands. 

Rev. S. — I maintain that the entire Jewish 
polity passed away when Christ died on the cross. 

L. — I admit that; but it is wholly irrelevant 
to the question before us, because the Jewish 
polity and the Church of God are by no means 
identical. The Church was in existence long be- 
fore the Jewish polity came into being, and was 
not disannulled or abolished either by the intro- 
duction or abolition of the law. (See Gal. iii, 
17.) "I say that the covenant that was con- 
firmed before of God in Christ, the law — which 
was four hundred and thirty years after — can 



134 The Bible Way. 

not disannul/' No passage in the New Testa- 
ment can be produced to show that either Christ 
or His apostles organized, or that Christ directed 
His apostles to organize, a new Church. The 
Commission gave no such authority. It simply 
extended the privileges of the Church to ''all na- 
tions," and gave directions for the introduction 
of a changed form of the initiatory rite to an 
ordinance more in harmony with the spirit of 
the new, more merciful, and less burdensome 
dispensation. 

Rev. S. — I claim that the Church of Christ 
was organized on the day of Pentecost. 

L. — But where is your proof ? The Bible says 
that those who were converted on that day were 
simply "added" unto them. (Acts ii, 41.) Where, 
then, is the account of the organization of the 
new Church? Is it at the time of the introduc- 
tion of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper? 
Turn to the account — Matt. xxvi. While they 
were eating the passover (an ordinance peculiar 
to the Church under the old dispensation) Jesus 
took bread and wine and introduced the sacra- 
ment of the Lord's Supper (an ordinance pecul- 
iar to the Church under the present dispensa- 
tion). How did those persons who were mem- 
bers of the former Church become dismembered 
from that Church? They were not expelled for 



Ths Bibi^ Way. 135 

unfaithfulness; they did not retire or withdraw, 
either by letter or in any other way, so far as 
the record goes; we have no statement that the 
Church was disorganized and abolished. How 
did they get out of one Church and into an- 
other ? 

They certainly did not receive Christian bap- 
tism, for it was not yet instituted, nor do we ever 
hear of any of the original twelve receiving 
Christian baptism. How did they become mem- 
bers of the new Church? They certainly were 
members because they partook of the sacrament 
of the Lord's Supper, which is an ordinance pe- 
culiar to the new dispensation — the new Church. 
On the supposition that the Church was but one, 
that there was no new Church instituted, every 
mystery disappears, and all is perfectly clear. 

Again, where does God's Word designate the 
Church of the olden times as the Jewish Church, 
and the Church of New Testament times as the 
Christian Church? Or where, by any names, 
does God make a distinction between the Church 
at one period and another ? 

The language of Scripture absolutely pre- 
cludes the idea of two Churches. For example, 
Isa. liv, 1-8, is utterly unintelligible if addressed 
to a Church which is destined to wane and 
eventually pass away when its covenant prom- 



136 Ths Bibi,£ Way. 

ises had scarcely begun to be realized. Heb. iii, 
1-6, calls the Church God's House, or household, 
in which house — or church — Moses is said to be a 
servant and Christ a Son, and all Christians, of 
all ages are called members. Which conclusively 
proves that the Church of God is one Church. 

In Matt, xxi, 23-43, Christ speaks of the 
Church under the figure of a vineyard as taken 
away from the Jews and given to another nation, 
or race of people. He does not speak of it as 
being disorganized among the Jews, and then a 
new one organized among the Gentiles, but sim- 
ply of its transfer — the same Church goes into 
different hands. 

In the eleventh chapter of Romans Paul rep- 
resents the Church as a tree with branches broken 
off, and new ones grafted in. No hint that the 
tree itself — the Church — was destroyed, and a 
new one planted. 

Writing to the Ephesians, Paul tells them — 
chapter ii, verses 11 and 19 — that, though once 
foreigners and strangers to the commonwealth 
of Israel, they had now become members of the 
same household, not another. Here the Church 
is represented as a household, and to preclude 
the idea of there being more than one such house- 
hold it is represented — verse 20 — as being built 
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, 



Ths Bibi,£ Way. 137 

Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief Corner- 
stone. 

But why multiply Scriptures? The evidence 
is strong, cumulative, resistless. "It is not more 
certain/' as one has fitly said, "that a man with 
increased stature, strength, knowledge, and wis- 
dom is the same person than that the Church of 
the patriarchs and apostles is one and the same 
Church." 

Our second proposition, therefore, is clearly 
and irrefragably established; viz., that the two 
laws — that of circumcision and baptism — were 
given to apply to and govern the same body — 
the Church. 

Rev. S. — I am satisfied you will not find it 
so easy to establish your third proposition. 

L. — Well, we will see: My third and last 
proposition is that the Scriptures, the only guide 
we have in the matter, make it certain that bap- 
tism and circumcision are thus related to each 
other, the one sustaining the same relation to the 
Church under the new dispensation as the other 
did under the old. 

Observe : I do not contend that baptism has 
the same relation to physical, literal things that 
circumcision had. I maintain that it has not; 
for if it had, it would not be suited to the new 
dispensation. Circumcision had a civil bearing, 



138 This Bibue; Way. 

a reference to literal things which were them- 
selves fulfilled at the time when baptism was 
introduced, and this is doubtless one of the very- 
reasons why the outward form of the rite was 
changed. So that all objections founded on the 
differences in these respects are wholly irrele- 
vant, and do not touch the case at all. We are 
quite willing to allow all you may ask on this 
line ; what I contend for is simply this : that the 
spiritual import of baptism is exactly what the 
spiritual import of circumcision was. 

Under the old dispensation there was Jew 
and Greek, bond and free, male and female ; but 
not so under the new dispensation; these dis- 
tinctions are gone, and spiritual privileges are 
alike to all. (Gal. iii, 28.) 

Bishop Merrill clearly shows the following 
things, viz. : 

1st. Circumcision imported the cutting off — 
removal — of sinful propensities. It symbolized 
the circumcision of the heart — Rom. ii, 28-29: 
"He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly ; neither 
is that circumcision, which is outward in the 
flesh; but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; 
and circumcision is that of the heart." 

2d. Circumcision was emblematic — it pointed 
to the moral purification of the heart — Deut. x, 
16: "The Lord thy God will circumcise thy 



Th£ Bibls Way. 139 

heart to love the Lord." This proves that it was 
the old and well-settled spiritual meaning under 
the law. It was a religious rite from the be- 
ginning, before it was invested with any civil or 
national meaning. 

3d. In the case of Abraham it unquestion- 
ably had a spiritual meaning — Rom. iv, 1 1 : "He 
received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the 
righteousness which he had." Whatever signifi- 
cance it took on afterwards under the law as a 
civil rite, it was from the first a "token of the 
covenant," a "seal of righteousness;" not of 
faith, nor of obedience, nor of repentance, but of 
righteousness. 

Now, it is certain that baptism came into the 
Church as circumcision went out, and it will not 
be denied that baptism, as a religious rite, pos- 
sesses exactly the same spiritual meaning which 
we have just seen the Scriptures prove was pos- 
sessed by circumcision; from this there can be 
no dissent, and yet, if admitted, it will follow 
that baptism has taken the place of circumcision 
in the Church of God, and, further, that no ob- 
jection can be urged against infant baptism that 
might not with equal force be urged against in- 
fant circumcision under the old dispensation. In 
the language of Bishop Merrill, "Here we stand," 
and we defy all the powers of anti-pedobaptism 



140 The: Bibi,£ Way. 

to break the rock upon which we rest. "The 
spiritual import of baptism is precisely what the 
spiritual import of circumcision was. Baptism 
is a religious rite, so was circumcision; baptism 
symbolizes the cutting off or removal of sin, the 
moral purification of the heart, so did circum- 
cision; baptism is a mark or token of recogni- 
tion in the covenant or Church of God, so was 
circumcision. Baptism has the same spiritual 
meaning, the same spiritual use, and fills the 
same spiritual office that belonged to circum- 
cision. The one sustains exactly the same spir- 
itual relation to the Church under the new dis- 
pensation as the other did under the old." 

But we have stronger evidence yet — in Phil, 
iii, 3. Paul is writing, not to Jews but to Gentile 
Christians, and to them he says, "For we [all 
Christians, whether Jews or not] are the cir- 
cumcision, which worship God in spirit/' etc. 
Now, they were not all of them the circumcision 
according to the flesh, many of them having 
never received fleshly circumcision. What, then, 
can Paul mean? He must mean that they pos- 
sessed that in their hearts which circumcision in 
the flesh formerly represented. And what was 
that? It was that which had been effected by 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and which was 
represented by water baptism. The plain infer- 



The: Bibi,3 Way. 141 

ence from this passage is, that circumcision and 
baptism have the same spiritual significance. 
Now turn to Col. ii, 10-12. Paul is writing to a 
Church existing under the new Gospel dispensa- 
tion; though they had not received circumcision 
in the flesh, yet Paul says, "Ye are circumcised" 
— with what kind of a circumcision? — "with the 
circumcision made without hands, in putting off 
the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of 
Christ." How is that? Paul answers, "buried 
with Him [Christ] by baptism." Then to be 
buried with Christ by baptism and to receive the 
circumcision of Christ is one and the same thing. 
Spiritual baptism and spiritual circumcision have 
the same meaning ; hence literal circumcision and 
literal baptism also signify the same thing, in 
other words have exactly the same spiritual im- 
port. Observe, baptism, in this passage, is ac- 
tually called "the circumcision of Christ" — 
Christian circumcision. God, then, has Himself 
forever settled this matter by declaring that bap- 
tism is Christian circumcision. How could He 
make it plainer? 

Such language as the above would be impos- 
sible if baptism and circumcision had no rela- 
tion to each other. The conclusion is, that what 
circumcision was to the Jew, in its religious 



142 The; Bibls Way. 

meaning, baptism is to the Christian. From this 
there is no escape. To summarize, then : 

1st. The two laws have the same Author. 

2d. The two laws were given to the same 
body — the Church. 

3d. The Scriptures place the matter beyond 
the possibility of dispute, that baptism sustains 
exactly the same relation to the Church that cir- 
cumcision formerly did. 

From which the conclusion is certain that the 
later law is but an alteration of the former. I 
demand then, sir, by what authority you make 
alterations in the original law which God has no- 
where authorized, and thus exclude from God's 
ordinances whom God hath not excluded, but 
whom the law most plainly shows to be of all per- 
sons the most suitable to receive it? Honestly, 
Mr. Slashaway, are not those who make such 
changes guilty of breaking the laws of God ? 

Suppose the commission had been "Go, dis- 
ciple the nations, circumcising them, teaching 
them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
commanded you," would there be any doubt as 
to whether infants were to be included ? 

R^v. S. — No, I think it would be clear in 
that case that infants are included. 

L. — And how is the case altered when it is 
baptism instead of circumcision? Does the fact 



The: Bibi,£ Way. 143 

of an alteration in the character of the rite ex- 
clude anybody who formerly received the corre- 
sponding rite? 

Rev. S. — But if baptism takes the place of 
circumcision, how does it happen that baptism is 
not, like circumcision, confined to males? Is 
not here positive proof that one does not take 
the place of the other ? 

L. — Certainly not. You might just as rea- 
sonably ask, how does it happen that baptism is 
not, like circumcision, confined to the Jews ? The 
reason why it is not confined to the Jews is be- 
cause the commission is "Go, . . . disciple 
the nations, baptizing them." And in like man- 
ner, the reason why it is not confined to males is 
because God Himself has said that under the new 
dispensation "there is neither male nor female." 
(Gal. iii, 28.) Distinctions in the terms and 
privileges of salvation were formerly recognized, 
between the Jews and other nations, in favor of 
the Jews; and among the Jews themselves, be- 
tween males and females and between bond and 
free ; but not under the new dispensation. Under 
it there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, 
male nor female. 

Again, let me ask, are your children Christ's ? 
If not, whose are they? 

R$v, S. — Of course we believe they are His. 



144 Th£ Bibi^ Way. 

L. — Well, Paul says, "If ye are Christ's then 
are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to 
the promise/' i. e., the Abrahamic covenant. So 
if, as you say, your children are Christ's, then 
God says they are heirs according to the ever- 
lasting covenant made with Abraham, and, if so, 
by whose authority are they denied the outward 
sign or token of that covenant (whatever it may 
be, or however often changed) of which they are 
heirs? It seems to me you people are taking a 
terrible responsibility upon yourselves to under- 
take to change God's laws where he has author- 
ized no change, and then to ask so flippantly 
what "good it can do to sprinkle a little water 
in the face of an unconscious babe." 

To all this it may be added that, in Mark x, 
13-16, our Lord explicitly declares young chil- 
dren — infants — to be subjects of His kingdom, 
partakers of its privileges and blessings, and are 
we to believe that at the same time he cuts them 
off from any external sign of connection with 
the kingdom He was establishing? Can we be- 
lieve that He declares them partakers of the 
blessings of the promise, and yet forbids the out- 
ward token of such participation? 

We also call attention to the fact that, al- 
though there are but few instances of baptism 
mentioned in the New Testament, about one-third 



Th£ Bibu: Way. 145 

of all are cases of household baptisms. While 
it can not with certainty be proved that there 
were infant children in any of these households, 
yef it certainly can not be proved that there were 
not, and the familiar way in which household 
baptisms are spoken of is exactly the way we 
would expect the record to be if the law applied 
to infants. 

When we leave the New Testament and come 
to the early history of the Church, we find the 
first mention of baptism speaks of infant baptism 
in that familiar way which precludes the idea 
that it was an innovation in the Church. We 
find it universally practiced in the Church from 
the very earliest secular history. We maintain, 
then, that the proof is clear, abundant, and de- 
cisive that the law of baptism applies to all who 
are in the kingdom and who are so situated that 
they can be taught, either before, or at the time, 
or after their baptism, the design of the ordi- 
nance. 

As corroborative to all this, we may easily 
see how those who lived immediately after the 
apostles understood their words. 

Justin Martyr, who lived only forty years 

after the apostles, alluding to Col. ii, 12, says: 

"We are circumcised by baptism with Christ's 

circumcision/' St. Basil says, "And dost thou 

10 



146 Tii£ Bibw; Way. 

put off the circumcision made without hands, 
. . . which is performed by baptism ?" These 
are but examples of the way in which the Fathers 
spoke. 

Charley felt within himself that the lady who 
had been so unceremoniously attacked, now had 
her assailants at her mercy. The current had 
completely changed. The Bible w r ay was too 
plain to require further words. There came upon 
him a settled conviction of the truth of God's 
Word upon the whole matter of baptism, con- 
cerning its design, its mode, and its subject, such 
as he had never known before. 

How often had he heard the declaration, 
"No Scripture precept, no express command for 
infant baptism." But the lady had produced the 
proof. The Great Commission, understood ac- 
cording to all just and recognized rules of in- 
terpretation, is an express command and precept 
for the baptism of infants, so we have as express 
a command and precept for baptizing infants as 
we have for baptizing adults, either male or 
female. Naturally he asked himself, Where is the 
express command for administering the sacra- 
ment of the Lord's Supper to females? Immer- 
sionists all practice it. Where is their express 
command ? 



The Biei<e Way. 147 

But Mr. Slashaway, unwilling to surrender 
to a woman, made one last effort. 

"Infants/' said he, "are not able to repent 
and believe, and therefore should not be bap- 
tized." 

But the lady shut off all possibility of escape 
by replying, "God's Word nowhere requires re- 
pentance and faith in order to baptism, except 
where they are also required for salvation." 

Rev. S. — What good can baptism do an in- 
fant? 

L. — I will answer by asking you another: 
What good could circumcision do an infant? 
When you answer me that I will guarantee you a 
satisfactory answer to the other. But, second, we 
do not baptize adults, either male or female, on 
the ground that we can estimate the good that 
may come from it, either directly or indirectly. 
Third, with yourselves baptism holds good in 
the case of an adult who, having been baptized, 
falls into sin and then returns to Christ; why, 
then, should not infant baptism hold good for 
an adult? 

Rev. S. — Infant baptism usurps the right of 
the child by depriving him of his own choice. 

L.- — Choice as to what? The mode of his 
baptism ? 

Rev. S. — Yes. It allows no choice. 



148 The Bible Way. 

L. — And what choice do you immersionists 
allow? Do n't you think such an objection comes 
with rather bad grace from you? 

Rev. S. — But, it does not allow them to 
choose as to whether they will be baptized at all 
or not. 

L. — And where do you find in the Bible that 
God permits any of His children, even adults, 
to choose as to whether they will be baptized or 
not? Would you not have the parent train up 
his child in accordance with his ow r n views of 
Divine truth lest he might prejudice his choice? 
I presume, Mr. Slashaway, that even yourselves 
would scarcely think it advisable to permit your 
own children to grow up without any effort to 
bias their minds in favor of your peculiar views 
on the subject of baptism, and that even at the 
risk of being charged with interfering w T ith the 
child's possibility of making an unhampered 
choice. I presume if you Disciple (Campbellite) 
people had been living in the times of circum- 
cision you might have explained to Abraham 
that circumcision should not be practiced for 
fear it might interfere with the child's right of 
choice as to whether it would be circumcised or 
not. 

Rev. S. — As an honest man I must admit 
you have fully answered that objection. But is 



The Bible Way. 149 

it not a fact that many persons baptized in in- 
fancy afterward become dissatisfied with their 
baptism ? 

L. — Never, except where they have been tam- 
pered with and practiced upon by anti-pedobap- 
tist proselyters. As Doane says, "No practice 
of the Church has, in these modern times, met 
with fiercer opposition from certain classes of 
professing Christians than that of infant bap- 
tism ; and the reason is obvious : unless those 
baptized in infancy can be disturbed in their be- 
lief of the evangelical character of the ordinance 
thus administered, they can never be proselyted/' 
Have you anything further to say? 

Rev. S. — Did not Christians receive circum- 
cision after the institution of Christian baptism? 

L. — There are a few instances on record, but 
Paul is careful to explain the reason for these. 
It was simply that they might have access to the 
Jews with the Gospel of Christ ; not as a matter 
of law, but simply of expediency. They became 
"all things to all men that they might win some." 

Rev. S. — I presume no good will come from 
a further discussion ; so, as it is late, I think 
we had better drop the subject. 

It was a very meditative people that left the 
house that evening. 



150 The: Bibus Way. 

The following day being Sunday, Charley, 
in the afternoon, wended his way as usual, to 
the Young Men's Christian Association rooms. 
Mr. Slashaway, being a stranger in the city, had 
accepted an invitation to address the young men 
at 3 o'clock. He took for his subject, "What 
must I do to be saved ?" 

As Charley approached the auditorium 
through the lobby he observed two gentlemen 
about to enter, when Mr. Slashaway said, "My 
object is to ascertain what an alien must do to 
be saved from past sins!" One of the strangers 
said to the other, "Why does he not ask what 
a sinner must do to be saved from present sin?" 
"Because," said the other, "this gentleman's de- 
nomination makes the 'alien' a peculiar kind of 
a sinner — a sinner who has never been bap- 
tized" "Do you mean to say," asked the other, 
"that with them the grossest and most w T icked 
sinner is not an 'alien' if only he has been bap- 
tized; and that the conditions upon which the 
baptized sinner is to be saved are different from 
those upon which other sinners are to be saved?" 
"That is it exactly." "Well, where does the 
Bible use the word 'alien' in any such sense as 
that? Does the Bible make any distinction be- 
tween 'alien sinners' and other sinners who are 
not aliens? Does the Bible say that alien sin- 



The Bibi^ Way. 151 

ners are to be saved in one way, and other sin- 
ners in another?" "Perhaps," said the gentle- 
man first addressed, "you would better ask Mr. 
Siashaway himself about that at the close of the 
meeting. The fact is, the doctrinal system which 
this gentleman represents has found it necessary 
to have a dialect peculiar to itself 5 originated by 
Mr. Campbell, and used by them all, in which 
Bible terms are given a meaning quite different 
from that attributed to them by Christian people 
generally. It is one of the best illustrations I 
know of the saying, 'Necessity is the mother of 
invention.' Mr. Campbell found considerable 
embarrassment — on his theory that baptism is a 
necessary prerequisite condition to salvation — in 
explaining how the backslider could be saved 
without re-baptism; hence he put his ingenuity 
to work and invented the distinction between 
'alien' sinners, and sinners who are not aliens. 
The distinction is wholly gratuitous and alto- 
gether foreign to the Bible, which is one of the 
best proofs that the system promulgated by Mr. 
Campbell, and accepted by all his followers, is 
false." 

The preacher then proceeded to elaborate his 
theological system; losing sight, apparently, of 
the fact that the Young Men's Christian Asso- 
ciation was an interdenominational organization, 



152 The Bible Way. 

and that ordinary denominational courtesy would 
suggest the impropriety of his discussing points 
in controversy between his own and other relig- 
ious denominations in such a place and on such 
an occasion. 

He first undertook to eliminate a large part 
of the Bible under the guise of "rightly dividing 
the word of truth." In this surgical operation 
the entire Old Testament (while acknowledged 
to be the Word of God, and divinely inspired) 
was cut out bodily as belonging to a bygone dis- 
pensation, and wholly out of date so far as afford- 
ing any authority or guide to us in the matter of 
personal salvation. It was dubbed "Our Grand- 
father's Will." He next proceeded to the New 
Testament Scriptures, tomahawk and scalping- 
knife still in hand. The four Gospels, including 
the Sermon on the Mount, shared the same fate 
as the Old Testament Scriptures. 

But that part of the Scriptures called by them 
"Our Father's Will," itself declares that "All 
Scripture given by inspiration of God is profit- 
able for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for 
instruction in righteousness ; that the man of 
God [not the Jew man only] may be perfect, 
thoroughly furnished unto every good work." 
It also says, "If ye are Christ's, then are ye 
Abraham's seed and heirs according to the prom- 



The) Bibi,£ Way. 153 

ise." What promise? Why, the promise made 
to Abraham in the everlasting covenant. And 
where is that recorded? In the Old Testament 
Scriptures. 

It looks, then, as though we had some little 
interest in the old "Grandfather's Will," after 
all. We had also supposed that one of the best 
and surest means of ascertaining the Gospel plan 
of salvation was to go to the words and acts of 
the Lord Himself during His earthly ministry. 
If we can not find the Gospel plan of salvation 
in the w r ords and acts of Jesus, w T here can we 
expect to find it? And if we can find nothing 
of the way of life from the Old Testament Scrip- 
tures because some of it was not intended for us, 
then, for the same reason, the entire New Testa- 
ment should also be rejected. 

The answer to the question, "What must I 
do to be saved?" resolved itself into this: 

1st. The sinner must hear the Word. 

2d. He must believe it. This is the sum and 
substance of faith. 

3d. He must repent. (Note the order ! — faith, 
then repentance.) 

4th. He must confess that Jesus is the Christ. 

5th. He must be baptized, that is, he must 
be immersed. 



154 The Bible Way. 

This is the order, and the result is the remis- 
sion of sins or salvation. 

The service being over, Mr. Slashaway en- 
gaged in conversation with several young men 
near the platform, among them Charley Wide- 
awake, who said : 

C. — Am I to understand you, Mr. Slashaway, 
that the design of baptism is to secure the re- 
mission of sins ? 

Rev. S. — Yes, sir. As a last condition. Bap- 
tism was instituted for this purpose and for no 
other. As a precedent condition to the remission 
of sins it is absolutely essential. The order is 
faith, repentance, baptism. 

"Where do you learn this order, Mr. Slash- 
away ?" inquired one of the group. 

On turning slightly, Charley saw that the 
speaker was one of the strangers who had ex- 
plained to his friend at the door the reason for 
Mr. Slashaway's use of the term "alien" instead 
of the term sinner in stating his proposition. He 
had ascertained that the gentleman's name was 
Learner, one of the new professors in the subur- 
ban college, and an active member of the Pres- 
byterian Church. 

Rev. S. — Why, that order is essential to a 
correct understanding of the Scriptures. 

Learner. — I presume you mean, to a correct 



Th£ Bibi,£ Way. 155 

understanding of the Scriptures as explained by 
Alexander Campbell and those who adopt his 
theories ? 

Rev. S. — Yes, sir. 

L. — Suppose the Scripture should show that 
this order is wrong, and that this order should 
be reversed, what would become of Mr. Camp- 
bell's system? 

Rdv. S. — I suppose it would fall to the 
ground. 

L. — I believe, Mr. Slashaway, that you are 
right. This order — faith first, and repentance 
afterwards — is essential to the system of Mr. 
Campbell. And I will now show you that it is 
essentially wrong, and exactly the reverse of the 
Divine order found everywhere in Scripture. 
Mark says : "The time is fulfilled, and the king- 
dom of heaven is at hand ; repent ye, and believe 
the Gospel." (Mark i, 15.) Not, Believe ye the 
Gospel, and then repent; but, Repent ye first, 
and then believe. This is God's order. Paul 
says (Acts xx, 21) : "Testifying both to Jews 
and Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith 
toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Not, faith first, 
and then repentance. Matthew says (xxi, 32) : 
"The publicans and harlots believed him, but ye, 
when ye had seen it, repented not that ye might 
believe." Thus showing that evangelical faith 



156 The: Bibu; Way. 

depended upon a prior repentance on the part 
of the sinner. This latter passage proves not 
only that the Divine order is appropriate, but 
that it is essential. It proves that there can be 
no true, evangelical, saving faith without a pre- 
cedent repentance. Christ demands true sorrow 
for sin before the soul can trust in or rely upon 
Him for salvation; but a full trust and reliance 
upon Christ for salvation is what the Scriptures 
define faith to be. How, then, can there be such 
reliance upon Christ for salvation without a pre- 
ceding, true, and heartfelt repentance? 

Mr. Campbell makes faith nothing but belief 
of testimony. The devils have that kind of 
faith, but the devils do not rely upon Christ or 
trust in Him for salvation. There is not an ex- 
ception in the Bible to the order I have pointed 
out. But in all the writings and sermons of Mr. 
Campbell's disciples there is not an exception to 
the order lgjd down by Mr. Campbell. You re- 
gard it discourteous for any one to call you 
Campbellites, do you not? 

Re;v. S. — Yes, sir, we do. 

L. — Well, now, Mr. Slashaway, will you tell 
me why you people invariably follow Mr. Camp- 
bell's order in speaking of repentance and faith, 
instead of God's order, if Campbell is not higher 
authority than God? 



The Bible Way. 157 

Rev. S. — I confess, sir, that that is a difficult 
question for me to answer. 

L. — I suggest, Mr. Slashaway, that it might 
be well for you to consider that question awhile. 

C. — Mr. Slashaway, do you believe that Mr. 
Wesley was a good man? 

Rev. S. — Why, certainly ! What do you ask 
me that question for? I have myself vied with 
the Methodists in praising the character of such 
men as John Wesley and Mr. Fletcher. 

C. — Well, I was just wondering, if immersion 
is a necessary precedent condition to salvation, 
how you could consistently acknowledge such 
men as Wesley, Fletcher, and the thousands of 
others who have proved their godliness by their 
lives, as saved and converted men at all. These, 
having failed to meet the conditions, how are 
you going to get them among the company of 
the saved? 

Rev. S. — Well, you see we have two ways 
out of the difficulty: First, we do not attempt 
to express any opinion in their case. We leave 
them to the tender mercies of God; or, second, 
we excuse them on the ground of their ignorance. 

C. — But the fact remains that, when pressed 
with the question, you do pass upon their cases ; 
for not one of you dare deny that these men 
gave as good evidence of saintly and Christlike 



158 The: Bibi^ Way. 

lives as any men that ever lived. Further, these 
men were as capable and well qualified to judge 
and know what the Divine requirements are as 
either Mr. Campbell or yourself. You can not 
deny that they were scholarly men, as honest, 
careful, and painstaking in their study and search 
of the Scriptures as even Mr. Campbell or your- 
self. The fact is that you dare not stand by the 
theory when pressed with its consequences. 
Either these men were not saved, or your theory 
is false. How about the thief on the cross? 
Was he saved without baptism, too? 

Rev. S. — Yes, it was impossible for him to 
be baptized. 

C. — How about the multitude who have hon- 
estly repented and trustingly believed in Christ 
upon their sick-beds, and who died triumphantly 
in the faith without being immersed? 

Rev. S. — We will have to make exceptions in 
these cases also; God does not require impossi- 
bilities. 

C. — The exceeptions are more common than 
the rule, are they not? Does it stand to reason, 
Mr. Slashaway, that God would put into the 
essential prerequisite conditions of salvation 
what he must have foreseen would be practically 
impossible for such multitudes who have the 
Gospel the same as you and I have it to-day? 



The: Bibi,£ Way. 159 

Again, is it not a reflection on Christ, the 
great Lawgiver, to charge Him with giving to 
the world a law concerning the most important 
matter with which men have to do, and yet 
couching that law in such language that nine- 
tenths of the most scholarly, saintly, and Christ- 
like ones who have ever walked this earth (men 
and women, too, who were as anxious to know 
and do God's will as even the followers of Mr. 
Campbell are) are not able to find that law in 
such a plain Book as the Bible? I believe, sir, 
that the theory which requires baptism before 
pardon is a pure invention, a human imposition 
foisted on the Church for a Divine requirement 
— a teaching for the commandments of God the 
doctrines of men. 

Rev. S. — Then Peter must have been guilty 
of the same offense, for when, on the day of 
Pentecost, the people asked, "What shall we 
do?" Peter said, "Repent and be baptized- every 
one of you for the remission of sins/' Peter was 
now standing at the door of the kingdom, hold- 
ing the keys, and was proclaiming for all time 
the terms of admission. 

The young professor, who was paying close 
attention, replied: 

Prof. L. — On the contrary, he was now 
speaking to the Jews who had been guilty of 



160 Thd Bibi^ Way. 

shedding Christ's blood, and when they saw 
their guilt under the blaze of this pentecostal ser- 
mon they asked, "What shall we do?" He re- 
plies, "Repent and be baptized upon the name of 
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye 
shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." What 
does that mean ? It is manifest that the word be- 
lieving or relying was understood by them be- 
fore the words "upon the name of Jesus Christ." 
The sentence then reads, "Repent and be bap- 
tized every one of you, believing on the name 
of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye 
shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." 

Rev. S. — But how do you know that there 
is an ellipsis in this passage, and that the word 
believing should be supplied? 

L. — There are several reasons to compel this 
conclusion : 

First. Similar omissions, where the sense is 
plain, are quite common in the Scriptures. 

Second. The preposition epi (which means 
on or upon) is used in the majority of Greek 
texts in this passage between repentance and bap- 
tism on the one hand, and the name of Jesus 
Christ on the other. Now, the preposition epi 
nowhere in Scripture connects either repentance 
or baptism with the name of Jesus Christ. Mr. 
Campbell himself says, in his work on Baptism, 



The; Bible; Way. 161 

p. 154, "Baptizo and epi so perfectly disagree as 
never to be found construed in amity in any 
Greek author, sacred or profane/' One can not 
repent upon a name, though he can repent upon 
faith in a name. The same is true of baptism; 
it is impossible to be baptized upon a name ; one 
can be baptized upon faith in a name, or believ- 
ing upon a name, but he can not be baptized 
upon a name ; hence the construction of the sen- 
tence indicates an ellipsis. "Epi" in connection 
with the name of Christ always means relying on, 
or believing upon the name of Jesus Christ, and 
Peter himself, in Acts xi, 17, clearly tells us 
what the word is to be supplied. "Forasmuch, 
then, as God gave them [certain Gentiles] the 
like gift as he did unto us who believed on the 
Lord Jesus Christ, what was I that I could with- 
stand God?" As Dr. Stuart says: "If anything 
could give more forcible illustration and warrant 
for reading Acts ii, 38, 'believing on the name 
of Jesus Christ/ it is incomprehensible what it 
could be. Here is an exact parallel of the phrase 
in Acts ii, 38, with 'believing' just where we 
claim it should be." Epi is used in both passages 
before the name of the Jesus Christ; and the 
very highest authorities among men, such as 
Winer, Dr. Ed. Robinson, Thayer, and others, 
say that "epi" (upon) in connection with the 
11 



1 62 Th£ Bibu; Way. 

name of Jesus Christ means trusting in or relying 
upon the name; that is, the merits of Jesus 
Christ. 

R£v. S. — But is not the preposition, in some 
Greek texts, "en" instead of "epi?" And would 
not that indicate that they were to be baptized 
in the name of Jesus Christ (that is, to have that 
name named upon them in baptism) ? 

L. — No, sir ; that would not follow at all, be- 
cause, first, baptism was not commanded to be 
administered, and never is administered, in the 
name of Jesus Christ, but always in the name of 
the Trinity — "in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 

Second, believers in baptismal remission tell 
us, and rightly, that whatever this passage says 
of baptism it also says of repentance; hence 
whatever baptism is in, repentance is also in. So, 
if Peter exhorted the people to be baptized either 
in or upon the name of Jesus Christ — meaning 
thereby that the name of Jesus Christ should be 
named upon them in their baptism — then the 
same is true of repentance; and the meaning is 
that Peter exhorted them, in their repentance, to 
have the name of Jesus Christ named upon them ; 
but that is nonsense. People are not, and never 
were, exhorted to have the name of Jesus Christ 
named upon them in repentance, which is an- 



Th£ Bibus Way. 163 

other proof that the word believing or relying 
upon must be supplied or understood before the 
name of Jesus Christ, and proves that your inter- 
pretation is false and impossible. 

Rev. S. — But did not Jesus say, in Mark xvi, 
15, 16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved ?" Did He not understand His own law ? 
Did He mean what He said? 

L. — Yes, He understood His own law, and 
meant exactly what He said. But that He said 
what you infer from His language is quite an- 
other question. The Scriptures also say, "He 
that endureth unto the end shall be saved/' Do 
they mean what they say? Then are we justi- 
fied in concluding, as you do from Mark xvi, 
15-16, that we are to go unpardoned, under con- 
demnation, and with our sins wholly unremitted, 
until we meet the conditions of the text, and "en- 
dure unto the end?" That is the conclusion to 
which your logic leads ; but is it a legitimate in- 
ference? Everybody knows, who will think for 
one minute, that it is not. 

The passage you have cited says, "He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that 
believeth not shall be damned/' The antithesis 
here between saved and damned clearly demon- 
strates that it is final salvation — the eternal re- 
ward in heaven — which is here promised to faith 



164 The; Bible Way. 

followed by a life of consecrated obedience. We 
do not deny that baptism, the Lord's Supper, 
continuance in well-doing, benevolence, and good 
works generally are commanded and required in 
order that one may retain his relationship with 
God as a saved man, and receive his final reward 
in heaven. But that is a very different matter 
from asserting that water baptism is a condition 
precedent to the pardon or remission of our sins 
at all. That is what you affirm; now, where is 
your proof? 

Rev. S. — I claim that it is in John iii, 5, 
which says, "Except a man be born of water 
and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the king- 
dom of God." We do not claim two births 
necessary, one of the Spirit and another of water. 
We hold that the Holy Spirit is, so to speak, the 
Father, and water is the mother. Now, when 
one is born of his mother, he may also be said to 
be born of his father, and there can be no birth 
of the Spirit without the birth from water ; in 
other words, there can be no salvation, no par- 
don or remission of sins, without a believing im- 
mersion in water. 

Now, you say that when a man exercises faith 
in Christ, he is, in that moment, born of the 
Spirit, and does not need to be born of water in 
order to get into the kingdom of God; that 



The; Bibi,s Way. 165 

water baptism, like the Lord's Supper, is simply 
required after we are in the kingdom, i. e., after 
we are pardoned and our sins are remitted. God 
says, "Except a man be born of Water he can 
not enter the kingdom. " Is not here a flat con- 
tradiction ? 

L. — No, sir. Born of water and born of the 
Spirit refer to precisely the same thing. Water 
is the standing symbol of the Holy Spirit, and 
is, by a common figure of speech, used for, and 
in the place of, the thing which it symbolizes. 
We have many instances of this ; for example, 
Isa. xliv, 3 : "I will pour water upon him that 
is thirsty." Is God speaking here of literal water 
quenching physical thirst ? So to interpret is to 
make nonsense. But to put it beyond the possi- 
bility of misinterpretation He adds : "I will pour 
my Spirit upon thy seed." Here, then, the sym- 
bol — water — is used for the thing symbolized — 
Spirit. 

Again, in Ezek. xxxvi, 25 : "Then will I 
sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be 
clean." Who interprets this to signify literal 
water, or physical cleansing? The explanation 
immediately follows: "I will put My Spirit 
within you." The Spirit is here a second time 
called water. 

Again, in John vii, 38 : "He that believeth on 



1 66 The: Bible Way. 

Me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living 
water." Who interprets such language literally? 
He immediately adds: "But this spake He of 
the Spirit" 

So in the passage you have quoted — John iii, 
5 : "Except a man be born of water" means, 
"Except a man be born of the Spirit," and in- 
deed the explanation immediately follows, "Even 
the Spirit." The conjunction kai, here trans- 
lated and, means even just as frequently as it 
means and. (See any Greek-English Lexicon.) 
Similarly in I Cor. xv, 24, we read, "When He 
shall have delivered up the kingdom to God 
[even] the Father," the same word {kai) is 
used. In Matt, xxi, 5, we read, "Behold, thy 
King cometh unto thee sitting upon an ass, and 
[kai] upon a colt, the foal of an ass." No one 
supposes he was sitting upon two beasts. Kai 
here means even. He was "sitting upon an ass, 
even the foal of an ass." 

So, in John iii, 5, the meaning is "Except a 
man be born of water, even the Spirit [of which 
water is merely the symbol], he can not enter the 
kingdom of God." 

If salvation through water is taught in John 
iii, 5, then much more is it taught in Ezek. xxxvi, 
25 : "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, 
and ye shall be clean." But since the prescribed 



Th£ Bibls Way. 167 

mode here is sprinkling you can not admit that; 
and so we demand if water is only used as the 
symbol of Spirit in this passage, how are you 
going consistently to deny that it is also so used 
in John iii, 5 ? Why accept the one as salvation 
through water while you reject the other? 

You have now cited the main passages which 
are supposed to prove baptismal remission. If 
your doctrine is not in these, no one will contend 
that it can be found anywhere in Scripture. But 
your interpretation of these passages has been 
weighed in the balances and found wanting ! 

Now, what does the Scripture have to say in 
opposition to your theory? John iii, 18, says: 
"He that believeth on Him is not condemned." 
Your theory says: "He that believeth on Him 
(if he is not immersed) is condemned. Which 
are we to believe ? Both can not be true. 

John iii, 36, says : "He that believeth on the 
Son hath everlasting life." Christ did not say: 
"He that believeth may have everlasting life if 
he is immersed.' y Your theory adds that to the 
words of Jesus, and thus becomes another Gos- 
pel. 

You require a candidate for baptism, before 
he is immersed, to say: "I believe on the Son 
of God." Now, if he tells the truth, he already 
"hath everlasting life" on the authority of Christ 



1 68 Ths Bibuc Way. 

Himself. But your theory says that Christ was 
mistaken, and that something else must be done 
for this man before he can have everlasting life, 
— he must be immersed in order to secure the re- 
mission of sins. Thus you reverse Christ's own 
most solemn declaration, and by your false teach- 
ing "make the Word of God of none effect." 

Peter says, Acts x, 43 : "To Him gave all 
the prophets witness that through His name who- 
soever believeth in Him shall receive the remis- 
sion of sins." Why did not Peter explain to Cor- 
nelius that baptism was necessary before his sins 
could be remitted? If your theory is correct it 
was especially important that it should have 
been here thoroughly explained; for this is the 
time and place where the Gospel was first 
preached to the Gentiles. Cornelius and his 
friends accepted Peter's words, believed on the 
Lord, their sins were remitted, the Holy Spirit, 
to attest this fact, was poured upon them, yet 
they w T ere still, according to your theory, in the 
"gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity," 
because they were not yet immersed. Is it pos- 
sible that a theory which admits of men receiv- 
ing the baptism of the Holy Spirit — the baptism 
from above — while still remaining in their sins, 
and having to continue thus until their sins are 
washed away by water baptism, can commend 



Ths Bibls Way. 169 

itself to reasoning men as the Gospel of the Son 
of God? 

Paul says, Rom. v, 1 : "Therefore being justi- 
fied by faith we have peace with God through 
our Lord Jesus Christ." Your system says Paul 
was mistaken, for a man is not justified by faith, 
but by an act of faith — viz., immersion — as a last 
condition. 

Jesus said to the weeping woman, Luke vii, 
50: "Thy faith hath saved thee." This system 
says it is not faith, but an act resulting from faith 
that saves. 

Peter says, Acts xv, 8, 9 : "God purified their 
hearts by faith." Your theory contradicts this, 
and declares it is not faith, but an act of faith. 
Which are we going to believe? Which is the 
higher authority, Christ or Campbell? 

Rev. S. — I think I have never seen our sys- 
tem appear at quite such a disadvantage. But 
there is one other passage I would like to have 
you explain. It is Acts xxii, 16, where Ananias 
says to Saul of Tarsus, "Arise and be baptized 
and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name 
of the Lord." Does this not teach that water 
washes away sins ? 

L. — No, sir. If you will observe the original 
here you will see that baptisai, which is here 
translated "be baptized," is in the middle and not 



170 The; Bibi,£ Way. 

in the passive voice ; literally it is not "Arise and 
be baptized/' but "Arise and baptize thyself." 
This is the only place in the Gospel where this 
word is found in the middle voice, and there 
must be a reason for it. How was he to baptize 
himself, and wash away his sins? The answer 
is, by "calling upon the name of the Lord." 
Campbell gives illustrations of this mode of 
speech, thus: "Cleanse the house sweeping it;" 
"Cleanse the garment washing it." Similarly: 
"Baptize thyself and wash away thy sins, calling 
upon the name of the Lord." That is, comply 
with the human conditions, by calling in faith 
upon the name of the Lord, and thus baptize thy- 
self and wash away thy sins. This was the very 
purpose for which Ananias had come, that Saul 
might "receive his sight and be baptized [filled 
with] the Holy Spirit." This is the only way in 
which he could baptize himself. Ananias spoke 
the words recorded, laid his hands upon his 
head, his sins were forgiven, and he was bap- 
tized with the Holy Spirit, the scales fell from 
his eyes, and all this before he was baptized with 
water at all, and how then, could water baptism 
have washed away his sins? There is only one 
possible way for water baptism to wash away 
sins, and that is, symbolically. 

Rev. S. — But does not your theory teach that 



The Bibi,]3 Way. 171 

we are justified by faith only, without works at 
all, while James teaches that we are justified by 
works, and not by faith only. (See James ii, 21- 
24.) "Was not Abraham our father justified by 
works when he ofifered up Isaac his son upon the 
altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his 
works, and by works was faith made perfect. 
. . . Ye see, then, how that by works a man 
is justified, and not by faith only." 

L. — Before answering your question I should 
like to ask you if you include baptism under 
i( works of righteousness ?" 

Rev. S. — Yes, sir; baptism is one of the works 
of righteousness. 

L. — And I believe you also contend that im- 
mersion is what Paul meant when he spoke of 
our being saved "by the washing of regenera- 
tion?" 

Rev. S. — Yes, sir; Paul says that we are 
saved "by the washing of regeneration," and we 
have always held this refers to baptism by im- 
mersion. 

L. — Well, my friend, your system, then, is 
slightly out of joint with Paul's idea, for he says 
to Titus, Titus iii, 5 : "Not by works of righteous- 
ness which we have done, but according to His 
mercy, He saved us by the washing of regenera- 
tion, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost." Now, 



1 72 The; Bibi<3 Way. 

if baptism is one of the works of righteousness," 
it can not also be the "washing of regeneration," 
for Paul says that one of these saves, and the 
other does not save, therefore they can not be 
the same thing; one position or the other must 
be given up. Now which is baptism, a work of 
righteousness, or the washing of regeneration ? 

R^v. S. — Really I hardly expected to get into 
such a tangle. I certainly can not surrender 
the position that immersion is the "washing of re- 
generation/' and I am fairly driven from the po- 
sition that it can mean both. I will therefore 
have to admit that I was wrong in calling bap- 
tism one of the "works of righteousness." 

L. — Well, then, if it is not a work what is it? 

R£v. S. — I really do not know. 

L. — Then what did you quote James for, to 
show that we were not saved by faith alone, but 
by baptism in addition to faith? If, when James 
said "by zvorks was faith made perfect," he had 
no reference to baptism, what bearing would this 
passage have on the case at all? 

Rev. S. — I confess I never saw the case just 
that way before. 

L. — Well, now, Mr. Slashaway, there is an 
accepted principle in interpreting Scripture, that 
any interpretation which would make one pas- 
sage of Scripture contradict another can not be 



Th£ Bibl£ Way. 173 

correct. Now, if your interpretation of James 
is correct, it would put him in flat contradiction 
of Paul, who distinctly says, Gal. ii, 16: "Know- 
ing that a man is not justified by works of the 
law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, we be- 
lieved on Jesus Christ that we might be justified 
by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law; 
for by the works of the law shall no flesh be 
justified." 

Again, in Eph. ii, 8-9, he says : "By grace are 
ye saved through faith, and that not of your- 
selves ; it is the gift of God ; not of works, lest 
any man should boast." 

Now, what is the true explanation? Simply 
this: Paul is writing concerning the justification 
of sinners, while James is not writing about the 
justification of sinners, or the conditions upon 
which sinners are justified, but concerning the 
justification of Christians. 

The term justification is used in different 
senses in the Scriptures. 1st. It is used to de- 
note the justification of the sinner, in the sense 
of pardon. 2d. It is used of the righteous, in 
the sense of approval. Paul, in such passages 
as I have quoted, uses it in the first sense; viz., 
in the sense of pardon and acceptance of the 
sinner. James, in the passage you have quoted, 
uses it in the sense of approval of the righteous 



174 Th£ Bibu; Way. 

when he refers to Abraham being "justified by 
works." Abraham's justification as a sinner is 
fully set forth in the fourth chapter of Romans, 
as follows: "For if Abraham were justified by 
works, he hath whereof to glory: . . . But 
what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed 
God, and it was counted to him for righteous- 
ness : ... to him that worketh not, but be- 
lieveth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his 
faith is counted to him for righteousness/' This 
was his justification as a sinner, and it took place 
over twenty years before his justification as a 
righteous and accepted man when he offered up 
Isaac his son to God, of which James speaks ; 
and this passage, in harmony with all the rest, 
forever excludes the idea that the sinner is, or 
can be, justified by works. 

There is no contradiction between Paul and 
James. The penitent sinner is justified by faith 
only; by which I mean that that is the only 
human condition upon which pardon can be had ; 
all other conditions without faith will be of no 
avail, but exercising a true faith in Jesus Christ, 
no power in hell or earth can keep the sinner one 
second from Christ, or prevent the pardon of his 
iniquities, and the remission of his sins. 

Disciple people frequently try to muddle up 
the case by speaking of a large number of causes 



Ths Bibi^d Way. 175 

or conditions of justification, and quote passages 
which refer to our being saved by grace, by the 
name of Christ, by the blood of Christ, by our 
knowledge, etc., etc. But this is all wide of the 
mark; the sole question is, "What is the human 
condition upon which the penitent sinner can 
find pardon?" and the Bible answer is, every- 
where, faith in Jesus Christ; and never once is 
it said to be through faith plus water baptism. 

This theory is also false in that it puts, as 
Dr. Hughey says, a second mediator between 
God and man — the human priest or administra- 
tor of water baptism — and limits the efficacy of 
the blood to the presence of literal water. Camp- 
bell says, "Wherever faith, water, and the name 
of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are, there the 
efficacy of the blood of Jesus will be found." To 
which Mr. Hughey responds: "According to 
this, where water is not found, there the efficacy 
of the blood of Jesus can not be found. Can 
any man in his senses accept such a monstrosity 
as the Gospel of the Son of God ?" 

Mr. Narroway, who had been a silent listener, 
said: 

Rev. N. — There seems to be little prospect of 
convincing these people that without immersion 
there is no salvation. So I think we may as well 
be going. 



176 Ths Bibus Way. 

The following Sabbath morning a most beau- 
tiful sight was witnessed at the Central Avenue 
Methodist Church when a class of one hundred 
and fifty — among whom was Charley Widea- 
wake, his face beaming with a new and heavenly 
light — stood before the chancel and answered the 
searching questions which publicly separated 
them from the world, and then the whole com- 
pany knelt at the altar; the congregation, stand- 
ing with bowed heads, sang softly and sweetly: 

" Eternal Spirit from on high, 
Baptizer of our spirits, Thou, 
The sacramental seal apply, 
And witness with the water now." 

And then the pastor, Dr. Fairplay, solemnly 
repeating the beautiful words of the Ritual, let 
the baptizing water fall upon the bowed heads 
of the candidates, as the baptizing flame fell 
upon the heads of the praying Christians at 
Jerusalem. 

As the great congregation wended their way 
from the sacred edifice, there might have been 
heard fall from many a lip, "How beautiful and 
impressive the service of the hour !" And from 
that day a consecrated band of Christians began, 
in love and Christian fellowship, to go out to 
brighten and to bless the homes and hearts of all 
with whom they came in touch. 



OCT 4 1906 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proc 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologi 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVAT 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 1 6066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 645 325 4 



